Petko Manolov <petkan@spct.net> writes:
> yoann@mandrakesoft.com wrote:
> >
> > Petko Manolov <petkan@spct.net> writes:
> >
> > > Most cpu architectures don't have more than two levels - kernel and
> > > user.
> >
> > I don't see this as a problem, please explain...
>
>
> OSes (like NT on x86) uses ring 0 privileged level (the highest) for
> the microkernel and ring 1 (or 2) for the device drivers, file
> systems, network protkols, etc. User level progs are in ring 3.
> If you have just two rings you should put everything except the
> kernel in user level.
>
>
> > > AFAIK Linus don't like the idea of micro kernel and i bet it won't
> > > happen soon (if happens at all ;-).
> >
> > agree :)))
> >
> > >
> > > > The advantage is that there is really not many chance for the kernel
> > > > to crash, as it only do minimal thing.
> > > >
> > > > If a driver crash, it doesn't disturb the kernel.
> > >
> > > Moving all drivers in user level is *bad* idea.
> >
> > It will clearly be slower, but please give reason for that thinking :)
>
>
> This is not minor reason, but is not the most important. Imagine the
> posibility any user can break your hdd or network driver. This can't
> be called OS any more (may be DOS ;-)).
why could they do that ?
-- -- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ product don't make a free() after a malloc(), the unix community wish them good luck for their future developement.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST