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