Re: AW: [Fwd: Re: EDE - Personal Suggestions and Ideas]

[Andrey Romanenko <bigral@i.com.ua>]

Hi there,

Gábor Lénárt wrote:

>So my ONLY though with this long novel ;-) -> at least we should provide
>the possibility for multi segment processes ... Sure, at startup process
>shoulde REQUIRE kernel for multi segment mode. In this way there is no
>slowdown or other resource bottleneck of this scheme if we don't want it.
>But if we want it, kernel prepares eg the above described signaling
>machanism and other stuffs I was talking about.
>  
>
I think all this "novel" sounds very resonable. We have vast of sources 
on the NET written with this 64kb segments in mind (yes those old 
sources still may be very useful for ELKS -GEM,libraries and so on.); 
Besides, there is FreeDOS project full of usable for our situation 
goodies. From the other hand we have MINIX and UZIX utilities sources 
that small enough to be compiled as 2 segment executables - so we need 
to keep existing executable schema. Eventually, guys look at OLD DOS - 
this operating system started with COM files and than moved forward to 
all those exotic mamory models available - that seems absolutely natural 
way.

I've got also question about proposed solution for segment base address 
changing by SIGNALs. Is there another way of managing this? Lets say 
user process upon memory allocation forced to "register" all places 
where it plan to keep 16bit segment address (CPU registers or memory 
locations) and kernel changes all those values upon process context 
loading according to current situation. It seems to me that all system 
related tasks should be performed by kernel but not by user process (the 
memory managment such a task).

thanks,

Andrey


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-8086" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html