spdk_blob_top_fs

ed. I genuinely did not follow Linux kernel development for quite a long time (as opposed to other OSes, like OpenBSD for example). Are you saying that nowadays (or maybe back then even), I can compile out VFS, the POSIX layer, the VM layer, kernel memory allocators? If so, that's indeed a big step towards microkernel-ness! > These objections are pedantry around what exactly is micro about a microkernel. You're saying I'm pedantic about what is a microkernel, I'm saying your definition of "microkernel" seems surprisingly broad, and question the merit of the term under that definition. According to you, where does a microkernel stop, and a monolithic kernel start, then? > Your message passing is my delegation through, say, netlink. netlink is not only one of many communication paths in Linux, it isn't even a raw message passing mechanism in the microkernel sense! It's built on top of POSIX and the socket layer, which are surfaced through many individual system calls into the kernel, and whose implementation is a pretty thick sandwich to get down to the actual mechanism that passes the message, i.e. that implements how the actual data is made available from one address space to another (zero-copy or not). Compare this with e.g. QNXs very simple, low level message passing protocol in its microkernel: https://www.qnx.com/developers/docs/7.1/#com.qnx.doc.neutrin... This is the actual low level mechanism, on top of which POSIX and pretty much everything else is built, outside of the microkernel. So it's actually quite the opposite of netlink! > Perhaps you are describing an exokernel concept where only the barest minimum is run in kernel mode? Liedtke's Minimality Principle states: "A concept is tolerated inside the microkernel only if moving it outside the kernel, i.e., permitting competing implementations, would prevent the implementation of the system's required functionality." So it seems that your "exokernel" definition matches my "microkernel" definition. Now, that definition represents an ideal that may not always be achieved in practive, but even then, the word "micro" in "microkernel" alone indicates that what should run in kernel mode should, at the very least, be extremely small. For my senses, I don't think "all of POSIX and VFS" is cutting it for that. > even L4 isn't a "true" microkernel if you are ultra-pedantic and run on processors with, say, userspace interrupts. I am actually open on what the "proper" definition of a microkernel is, but if the current state of the Linux kernel is included in that, and again if my present understanding of Linux is accurate and up to date (i.e. POSIX, VFS, allocators, all of the vm layer, and many many more things are still integral and inseparable parts running in kernel mode), i.e. if the term "microkernel" is not sufficient to separate such a kernel from QNX's Nucleus, or L4, then that term strikes me as rather useless. FWIW, I don't think I have ever seen any Linux kernel maintainer, including Linus, referring to their kernel as a microkernel. I have seen the exact opposite in the famous debate with Tanenbaum, but that was decades ago, so I have to be open to the possibility that the shape of the Linux kernel may have changed significantly since then.

> A monolithic [sic] kernel is a tiny kernel that does not do much more than message passing. Linux is very far away from that, your "userspace servers" for FUSE and similar things are better called "delegates" for subsystems that still reside in the kernel itself. Your message passing is my delegation through, say, netlink. Perhaps you are describing an exokernel concept where only the barest minimum is run in kernel mode? Mach runs a lot more in kernel mode than necessary, even L4 isn't a "true" microkernel if you are ultra-pedantic and run on processors with, say, userspace interrupts.