On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:09:27 -0600 (CST), "The Great Mr. Kurtz [David A.  
Gatwood]" > I'm looking for that particular bit of information.  I have two  
(huge)
> manuals that I DL'ed about the Mach microkernel that detail basically
> every single thing about the kernel-server interface, except that it
> doesn't say anything about any devices except the clock.

That's because lots of that depends on the implementation of the OS server  
architecture.

> I was just thinking about that.  The big thing that bothers me are those
> handfuls of code in assembly language.  As I delve farther in, perhaps
> I'll find some of those routines duplicated by mach IPC calls, but... the
> others may still leave an unfortunate processor dependency.  We'll see.

You need to replace *all* assembly in an OS server for it to be portable.

> Right.  As long as they both recognize the same types of binary headers,
> the ML underlying should be the same.  Noteworthy exceptions include
> anything that directly accesses the hardware, but I think X and dt both
> work entirely through drivers now on the NetBSD side.  That'll be the fun
> part, /dev/adb and /dev/grf#....

Just as an excercise for the curious, there's X in the shape of an Mach mk  
server out there.

> > The part which would scare me the most (reflecting my lack of experience)
> > would be configuring the tool chain. If you can do that, you're set; you
> > can compile from anything.
>
> Well, the fact that MkLinux exists for the PowerMac is a huge step in the
> right direction.  What has me stumped is getting bmake working.  (Getting
> it to compile was enough fun.  :-)  I can't find the sys.mk file anywhere,
> it's not in sys.tar.gz, nor in shar.tar.gz, nor in the includes.tar.gz or
> is it headers.tar.gz....  Since the compiler would already be building
> binaries in a format recognizable by the mach microkernel (elf?)...

Where do you get that from? ;-)

> the
> toolchain in that regard shouldn't be a problem.  BTW, anybody know if
> there's an ELF compatibility option that could easily be compiled in to
> eliminate the need to compile a new userland, at least during the
> development process?  (That is, of course, assuming I get enough of it
> working to mount a filesystem....)

Nope, sorry, there isn't.. That would be just too plain easy.

> Thanks for the moral support, anyway.  And as always, thanks for the
> suggestions. I can't promise that I can get anything working, but... I
> figure it's worth hacking at for a while, and I'd much rather run NetBSD
> than Linux on top of Mach.  :-)  In the meantime, I have a couple more
> 200+ page microkernel books to print.  :-)

Also, it is very much recommended that you check the books out Mary Thompson  
and JMS wrote.  Not everything (although a lot of everything) is contained in  
those giant PS files.

*gulp* This Estes *gulp* Park Raspberry Wheat *gulp* *gulp* is the best... ;-)
Chris


--
Christian Kuhtz          kuhtz@ix.netcom.com - hm, ckuhtz@paranet.com - wk
Network/UNIX Specialist      BOYCOTT INTERNET SPAM http://www.vix.com/spam
Paranet, Inc.                                      http://www.paranet.com/