From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20040426202214.0ae43d80@pop.noos.fr> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Philippe Anel Subject: Re: [9fans] an idea In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.0.22.0.20040426195547.0ae42140@pop.noos.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:36:07 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6ecc0c9c-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 At 20:16 26/04/04, you wrote: > > With /srv/sharp, can these exceptions in 'chan.c:namec()' be treated > > with a file flag ? > >i'm not sure that /srv/sharp would be a great idea. after all, isn't >the idea of this to lose the distinction between user and kernel >devices, and to be able to arrange things arbitrarily for a given >process? True. In the scheme i'm thinking off, there is no distinction between user and kernel device. In fact, I'd like to move all the device to user mode. But i still haven't find how to move #p or #s to user mode. Finally i think that some device have to be kernel device. In fact I'd like to build a kind of a microkernel without the task/thread stuff, but entierly based on channels (ports) capabilities and 9p2000. >after all, it might be quite reasonable, in some circumstances, to >allow a process access to #S but deny it to #p. I think capabilities would help here. >in the scheme i'm thinking of, the exceptions in namec() would >go, along with RFNOMNT. Due to capabilities, in my scheme there is no need to have RFNOMNT too. Philippe.