>> Is kernel threads something envisionned for the "near" future of Minix?
> I'm afraid not. ../.. The benefits are not so clear.
True. Just curious.
> This can mean various things.
Yes, it does not require kernel threading support.
> For example, libmthread already implements a
> large subset of the pthreads API/standard,
I might be wrong, but I understood it did not support pre-emption,
only cooperative multithreading.
Does libmthread support pre-emption ?
>> * lightweight libC library - Musl could be a nice candidate for example
> Hmm, I thought the netbsd libc wasn't very heavyweight to begin with?
Well, on ARM a stripped, statically linked version, of
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello, World\n");
return 0;
}
weights 315 KiB ...
It is definitely not GNU libc, but still heavy.
musl is supposed to be much lighter (I have not tested it on Minix :-)):
http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html
A non-trivial embedded system is likely to require "some" storage
space, especially if you need to have multiple concurrent processes
(vs. threads) and without dynamic lib support...
This is probably not a big issue with BeagleBoards, new RPis, etc. but
on devices that embed RAM & Flash in the 10's MiB range, this could be
a show stopper.
A full Minix system is more in the 100's MiB range, but the Minix
"core" (kernel, system servers/fs, ...) could be used on smaller
devices.
Cheers,
Manu