*BSD News Article 19452


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!myall.awadi.com.au!blymn
From: blymn@awadi.com.au (Brett Lymn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Subject: Re: V86 mode & the BIOS (was Need advice: Which OS to port to?)
Date: 13 Aug 1993 02:51:25 GMT
Organization: AWA Defence Industries
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <BLYMN.93Aug12205126@mallee.awadi.com.au>
References: <107181@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1993Aug4.073826.24956@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
	<107725@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1993Aug9.224939.19834@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
	<108137@hydra.gatech.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mallee.awadi.com.au
In-reply-to: gt8134b@prism.gatech.EDU's message of 10 Aug 93 00:41:41 GMT

>>>>> On 10 Aug 93 00:41:41 GMT, gt8134b@prism.gatech.EDU (Howlin' Bob) said:

Bob> In <1993Aug9.224939.19834@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

>In article <107725@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt8134b@prism.gatech.EDU (Howlin' Bob) writes:
Bob> which can be implemented with flock().  My plans to wedge dosemu
Bob> back into one process would require asynchronous I/O and the delivery
Bob> of the SIGIO signal.  

From all outward indications *BSD supports asynch I/O, so the port to
*BSD will more than likely take advantage of that.

Bob> I'd like to see a vm86() system call implemented similarly to
Bob> Linux's, although I wouldn't be opposed to suggested improvements
Bob> that I could incorporate back into Linux.  Note that the Linux
Bob> implementation of vm86() is extremely simple; this could not
Bob> by any stretch of the imagination be called "kernel bloat."
Bob> If anyone is interested, I could describe vm86() in greater
Bob> detail.

Unfortunately, the v86 call is not a simple in *BSD, the method Linux
uses to change the task into v86 mode will not work due to differences
in the way the supervisor stack is used in *BSD (this is from memory,
I may have the wrong names but the concept is right I think).
--
Brett Lymn