Re: Why do an MMU-Less Port of NetBSD?

["Aaron J. Grier" <agrier%poofygoof.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Charles Nelson wrote:
> I have project in mind that requires porting NetBSD to an MMU-less
> MCU.  It appears that no one else has made a real attempt at doing an
> MMU-less port so I'm now asking myself is there a real need to do
> this?  The MCU I have in mind is very popular and a port of uClinux
> already exists for it.

obviously if uClinux exists, there is/was a need.  MMU-less support is
increasingly more of a niche over time, as 32-bitters with MMUs become
cheaper, but if you've got an itch to scratch, I say go for it.

the more MMU models the kernel can support, the better, I say.  worst
case you learn a bit in the process.

Marc Balmer wrote
> In my opinion there is no need for an MMU less implememtation. It
> would be insecure.

insecure is often preferred to completely non-functional.  ;)

depending on the target, there may also be ways to keep a separation
between user and kernel modes, at least.

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | 
agrier%poofygoof.com@localhost