From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <05f3477826ed9392704c444db1b63212@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: what about microkernel?
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Sat,  6 Oct 2007 21:50:40 +0100
In-Reply-To: <fe8qt4$stp$1@sea.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cb8d2db2-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> you mean, the all 9 subsystems works through 9P and filesystems,
> that safe for kernel?

the kernel doesn't actually implement all that much, and most complex things
are outside the kernel.  the biggest exceptions are networking
and low-level device drivers, but the interface to those is small,
or even tiny.  the device drivers aren't that big either.
the network has been in and out of the kernel at different times over the years.

qnx is probably the most reasonable so-called microkernel i've seen described
(but i haven't seen their code).