Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion

[Frank Naumann <fnaumann@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de>]

Hello!

I don't understand this discussion at all. I don't followed all postings
in detail, especially the parts there it's getting personally.

>From my OS design point:

- the kernel support the available hardware
  this include special features of emulators I think; the implementation
  should be intelligent and easy to maintan, as seperate module
  or whatever; in general there is lot of optimization potential to
  make the kernel smaller and more modularized

- cookies with jump tables are a very bad design; this is the TOS/MagiC
  way of system extensions (rather than through syscall enhancements);
  this will always conflict with memory protection or a VM module;

  I'm sure I already mentioned this some time ago, at least I discussed
  with Petr or Standa about it; I know it's the easiest way and such
  cookie it's available for TOS/MagiC too (I think the main argument
  for this design).

  Personally I think a much better design is to provide something like
  a special hardware, e.g. some addresses that are mapped into the I/O
  area and are used like a piece of hardware for poweroff, calling
  host system functions and such stuff.


Ciao
   ...Frank

--
ATARI FALCON 040 // MILAN 060
-----------------------------------------
http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~fnaumann/
e-Mail: fnaumann@freemint.de