Re: Do we want a server on `/servers/machine' (or similar)?

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hello!

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:35:03PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> That is more or less what we always planned.

Good.  Have such things been written down somewhere?


> For the server that only
> deals with io ports, call it /servers/ioperm.

Fine, but are you in fact suggesting to have separate server for i/o
ports and memory access?  I would have stashed those two interfaces (as
well as any others?) into one single server.


On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:54:22AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I don't much like the name /servers/machine; so let's figure out
> something better.  Names like that persist forever, so it's actually
> more important than it might seem to get them right from the get-go.

I completely agree.  I didn't like that name myself, but couldn't easily
come up with a better one, so posted that one more or less as a
placeholder.

Now, if Roland suggests to separate the i/o port and memory access
interfaces then we could (for example) simply have the suggested
`/servers/ioperm' and a `/servers/mem' (or `/dev/mem'? -- but our thing
is more advances than the usual Unix system's `/dev/mem' is, so we'd
rather put it into `/servers/', I think).


Do we want separate servers?


Regards,
 Thomas

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature