3 ms·
Agreed -- and people are proud (NetBSD) or defensive (Linux) of the characterization I made -- and while of course every single line isn't re-written, and pres
by bch 12y ago
Agreed -- and people are proud (NetBSD) or defensive (Linux) of the characterization I made -- and while of course every single line isn't re-written, and presumably Linux kernal devs will talk to ea. other, or perhaps one person maintains multiple architectures and therefore gets automatic code/idea sharing, NetBSD goes through pains to make sure all the supported platforms' origin is the one, single repository that is NetBSD.
- caf 12y agoThat's really not how it is. For example, here the one single implementation of the madvise() syscall in Linux: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/mm/madvise.c?id=v4.0#n458 http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g... This entire file is compiled on all architectures with MMUs (madvise() is pointless on architectures without MMUs and hence without virtual memory). Everything architecture-specific in this file is abstracted away by macros like PAGE_SIZE and PAGE_SHIFT.