From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1FVCSc-0004if-Kx for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:59:02 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FVCSa-0004i1-VQ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:59:01 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FVCSZ-0004hb-F2 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:59:00 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVCSZ-0004hY-B0 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:58:59 -0400 Received: from [194.109.24.30] (helo=smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FVCT3-00088U-4x for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:59:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (249-174.surfsnel.dsl.internl.net [145.99.174.249]) by smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3GIwv69094736 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:58:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mgerards@xs4all.nl) Mail-Copies-To: mgerards@xs4all.nl To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <87y80ow7bl.fsf@xs4all.nl> <200602092334.53634.okuji@enbug.org> From: Marco Gerards Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:00:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200602092334.53634.okuji@enbug.org> (Yoshinori K. Okuji's message of "Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:34:53 +0100") Message-ID: <87ejzx73cw.fsf@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: Idle time X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:59:01 -0000 "Yoshinori K. Okuji" writes: > In my opinion, the essential function would be something similar to pause in > POSIX, since the timer itself is an event. > > If you want to stop CPU while waiting, the events must be hardware interrupts, > or triggered by hardware interrupts (such as a timer). Probably the most > difficult architecture is PC in this case, because the interrupt handling is > different between protected mode and real mode, and we may not interfere with > BIOS. Looking at Etherboot's experience, this should be feasible but not > trivial. I think there is some CPU based functionality for this as well. > However, it is easy to make a fake component for this, so I don't object to > this. For example: I had a slightly different model in mind, although it looks like yours. How about me start getting coding, submit a patch and we can talk about that? After this I can do some networking hacking. Which I want to submit within a month or so. Thanks, Marco