I'm very grateful to Charles Forsyth for creating most of Jehanne's kernel
and to 9front's guys for all the code and ideas they freely share.
Here I make their copyrights explicit as they had been erroneusly omitted
or messed up before. Sorry.
This large commit address several issues
- removed 386 directory: Jehanne is 64bit only
- simplified kernel options management
- rewritten boot process
- ported memory related stuff from 9front's 9/pc64
- removed devacpi
- removed old code
- deep refactor of awake syscall
- removed MCACHE support for mount
- fix libc's setjmp/longjmp
With this commit all functions declared in libc.h have been renamed
with the "jehanne_" prefix. This is done for several reason:
- it removes conflicts during symbol resolution when linking
standard C libraries like newlib or musl
- it allows programs depending on a standard C library to directly
link to a library depending on our non standard libc (eg libsec).
To ease transiction two files are provided:
- sys/include/lib9.h that can be included instead of <libc.h> to use
the old names (via a simple set of macros)
- sys/src/lib/c/lib9.c that can be compiled with a program where the
macro provided by lib9.h are too dumb (see for example rc or grep).
In the kernel port/lib.h has been modified accordingly and some of
the functions it directly provides has been renamed too (eg malloc
in qmalloc.c and print in devcons.c).
OREAD and OWRITE are used as array indexes assuming that OREAD was zero
and OWRITE was one. Thus each related allocation reserved just 2 slot and
even Ep struct in usb.h reserved just 2 int for toggles.
Since OREAD is now 1 and OWRITE is 2 we have to allocate/reserve 3 slot
as long as we use them as array indexes (which we could change in the future).
Unfortunately this means we waste the index zero in those arrays that will
always be unused. This also means that, to loop in such arrays we must begin
with OREAD as index zero is always empty.
PRO-MEMORIA: if/when we introduce the walk() syscall, OSTAT might turn useless.
In that case we might remove it and thus consider to move back OREAD/OWRITE
to 0/1 respectively (which might or might not be a good idea, to be analyzed).
Giacomo Tesio