? about kernel size..

[Brad Walker]

I tend to agree with your comments.

I'm not certain that getting a microkernel is all that much use anymore.
Sure they are tight, small and for some implementations time deterministic.
But, the point is rapidly approaching where requirements are saturating
what they can do.

I've worked on the following microkernels: uTasker, ThreadX, ENEA Ose. But,
each one has positives and negatives. But, the needs are starting to
outweigh the positives and grow the negatives.

For example, we have a requirement to implement SSL/TLS, BTLE, and ftp on a
microkernel. By the time this is done, it will be worthwhile to look at
alternatives. Not to mention, the needs just keep coming.

-brad w.



On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If someone wanted to bring up freebsd on an mmu-less platform then I'd
> say go for it, but you'd have to crime out a lot of code and
> functionality to make it work.
>
> Honestly you'd likely be better off getting a microkernel type thing
> going and then bring over the minimum set of useful things (say the
> usb and network stacks) which don't really require much VM clue to
> operate. the filesystem code may be a bit more challenging to bring in
> as you're going to have to crime a bunch of VM specific things out, so
> it may not be worth it.
>
>
> -adrian
>