olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 12 Mar 2010 00:32:44 +0100, a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 05:35:13PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Using the iopl device is a bit of a hack, a more proper solution needs > > to be done. > > I don't consider it a hack. What would be a more "proper" solution in > your opinion?...
You need to dig back the discussions on IRC or the list (can't remember), but things like proper memory attribution: avoid letting two processes access the same area, possible delegation, etc. In a word: translators :) > Of course, one day hopefully we will have a lovely PCI bus server, which > allows clients to map individual regions according to the device > configuration... Which would be such kind of delegation and translators. > But that will still need a method for obtaining a > memory object for the physical address space from the kernel. Right. > > Maybe in the meanwhile we should alias mem and iopl in the gnumach > > kernel, so already installed hurds can run Xorg (and the name "iopl" > > doesn't sound so good to me to replace mem :)). > > Yeah, I actually mentioned on IRC that probably the best fix is renaming > the kernel device... And break existing code that uses it? Samuel
