On Jul 30, 2014 10:44 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:28:53 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Are you sure rump is actually suitable for handling file systems?
> > > Did anybody write such kind of shim as a proof of concept?
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 01:24:04PM -0700, Ben Gras wrote:
> > yes - http://www.netbsd.org/~stacktic/ebc09_fs-utils_paper.pdf
>
> Thanks, actually I was aware of this paper.
>
> Yes it is quite straightforward to replace the open/read/... layer with
> calls to the filesystem code, ignoring any issues of handling access
> rights or concurrent access by multiple parties.
>
> The omitted functionality is nevertheless vital and is the duty of the
> coordinating kernel. I am not sure that the involved primitives in the
> NetBSD and Minix kernels correspond to each other (not sufficiently
> conversant with either).
>
> The file system internals layer and the VFS layer assume an OS-specific
> interface in between and it looks like we would have to connect one of
> NetBSD with the other of Minix. Are they compatible?
>
Hi
I work on rump kernel development and happy to help. The VFS and IP stack
interfaces are pretty simple in rump - you just need a block device type
interface for file systems and an interface to write Ethernet frames for
the IP stack. These are good places to start.
Genode has already interfaced rump to their microkernel to provide drivers
so you could look at their implementation.
Justin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
rumpkernel-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rumpkernel-users
