To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thanks for your nice words.
Forking the kernels is the only choice to go forward. If the project wouldn't have forked NOVA, Genode was not able to execute complex dynamic application scenarios because the kernel was lacking important functionality in this area. The situation for the Fiasco.OC kernel is similar. The kernel lacks support for Exynos 5. So for using Genode on this kernel on this SoC, there is hardly any alternative to maintaining a fork.
The term "fork" has maybe a negative connotation. But I think this is misconception here. We'd be happy to see our changes being picked up by the upstream kernel developers. For example, with the NOVA developers, we are constantly discussing the issues solved by our modifications. So our experience and proposed solutions contribute to the forthcoming development of the kernel.
Norman,
Since Fiasco.OC has been forked, do you think it would be worthwhile to implement the change suggested here: http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/pipermail/l4-hackers/2012/005361.html ?
That is getting rid of Sigma0 as done by other L4 or L4-like kernels... Or do you think diverging too much from the upstream kernel is not justifiable right now?





Member since:
2007-08-20
This project continues to make leaps forward!
The decision to fork the kernels in order to more fully support Genode's features seems risky in the long term, but it's probably the right choice.
Keep up the good work - and the status updates!