On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 16:29 +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Jonathan S. Shapiro dies 21/04/2006 hora 19:48:
> > 1. Check out the existing (or forseeable) alternatives very carefully.
> > Try to find an existing kernel you can live with. The answer will be
> > "no".
>
> Could it be possible to summarize very quickly what the unresolved or
> pending issues are that make either new L4 designs or Coyotos not
> perfectly suitable for Hurd?
Not until there are well-defined objectives for Hurd.
Some unresolved issues that I know about:
1. There is a desire for pinning, but no workable design exists.
2. No particular scheduler has been selected. The current plan in
Coyotos is to continue with the Mercer/Tokuda capacity reserve
scheduler by default.
shap
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
L4-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
