Software isolation can be implemented on top of hardware isolation, but not vice versa. If you don't understand that, then I can't explain it any better.JohnnyTheDon wrote:Using hardware protection is a very big policy decision. That means there are no microkernels.Craze Frog wrote:Using software protection was a very big policy decision.
EDIT: grammar
what kind of kernel is this?
-
- Member
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:52 am
Re: what kind of kernel is this?
- Colonel Kernel
- Member
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:06 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Contact:
Re: what kind of kernel is this?
Separation of mechanism and policy is much easier in a microkernel architecture, but it is not a requirement. Mach and QNX are both microkernel architectures and both have plenty of policy (scheduler, memory management) in the kernel.
Singularity can use hardware isolation as well as software isolation. My point was that flipping the switch to enable hardware isolation does not suddenly make it a microkernel.
Singularity can use hardware isolation as well as software isolation. My point was that flipping the switch to enable hardware isolation does not suddenly make it a microkernel.
Top three reasons why my OS project died:
- Too much overtime at work
- Got married
- My brain got stuck in an infinite loop while trying to design the memory manager