On May 1, 2:11 am, Ben Artin <mac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
> That is particularly true on Mac OS X, where syscalls are not the
primitive way
> for userland code to communicate with the kernel -- Mach IPC is, and
syscalls
> are layered on top of Mach IPC. So, by using syscalls you are *already*
one
> layer above the kernel. If you want to be as close to the kernel as
possible,
> then you need to use Mach APIs directly; they tend to be painfully
complicated
> to call if you've never seen them before. If you want to avoid the pain,
you
> might as well use fork() in the C library, which I believe will not have
weird
> calling conventions.
Heh, Mach IPC eh?
Now you've got me REALLY interested. I live for pain by the way lol,
gonna check this mach API out just for the heck of it.
So I imagine this mach IPC API is glue that allows stuff outside the
kernel proper like device drivers and like to talk to the kernel and
with each other, I would imagine? Damn, there's a lot I still need to
learn.
Hadn't realized it was im****tant at all given as I understand it,
although XNU is based on mach, it's fairly monolithic with lots of
stuff brought inside kernel space for speed reasons...
Makes you wonder why they just didn't put a FreeBSD or like inside in
the first place.... Oh... but we're really running NextStep though
aren't we :)
I'll go google some mach IPC stuff but if you've got some really good
primer links, I'd be very grateful if you could share them with me :)
Thanks again.
> Ben
Robert Spykerman
|
