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

Andrey Romanenko
2004-05-26T16:00:30Z

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