Hello! On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:35:03PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > That is more or less what we always planned.
Good. Have such things been written down somewhere? > For the server that only > deals with io ports, call it /servers/ioperm. Fine, but are you in fact suggesting to have separate server for i/o ports and memory access? I would have stashed those two interfaces (as well as any others?) into one single server. On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:54:22AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I don't much like the name /servers/machine; so let's figure out > something better. Names like that persist forever, so it's actually > more important than it might seem to get them right from the get-go. I completely agree. I didn't like that name myself, but couldn't easily come up with a better one, so posted that one more or less as a placeholder. Now, if Roland suggests to separate the i/o port and memory access interfaces then we could (for example) simply have the suggested `/servers/ioperm' and a `/servers/mem' (or `/dev/mem'? -- but our thing is more advances than the usual Unix system's `/dev/mem' is, so we'd rather put it into `/servers/', I think). Do we want separate servers? Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
