From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262217AbUBXJSD (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:18:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262221AbUBXJSD (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:18:03 -0500 Received: from everest.2mbit.com ([24.123.221.2]:48359 "EHLO mail.sosdg.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262217AbUBXJSA (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:18:00 -0500 Message-ID: <403B169E.4000006@greatcn.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:17:18 +0800 From: Coywolf Qi Hunt Organization: GreatCN.org & The Summit Open Source Develoment Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, zh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Randy.Dunlap" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <4039D599.7060001@greatcn.org> <20040223151815.GA403@zaniah> <403AB897.8070002@greatcn.org> <20040223205522.66d7fb4f.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040223205522.66d7fb4f.rddunlap@osdl.org> X-Scan-Signature: e39eceae6eb4554774934c39b07fdc9c X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: coywolf@greatcn.org Subject: Re: Does Flushing the Queue after PG REALLY a Necessity? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-SA-Exim-Version: 3.1 (built Tue Oct 14 21:11:59 EST 2003) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:36:07 +0800 Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote: > > | Right, I also think removing the flush code is risky. Thanks very much, > | chapter 18 is what i was looking for. I recalled in an old intel > | booklet, named like something 386 system guide, says JMP after PG as > | well as PE. But I didn't have that book at hand and didn't find any e-doc. > > I guess that's the 80386 System Software Writer's Guide. > Ch. 6: Initialization. > Yes, it does JMP after setting PE and after enabling PG. > Any JMP. Yes, it's that booklet, very thin. > > | However, in 18.27.3, "The sequence bounded by the MOV and JMP > | instructions should be identity" implies no JMP is also viable > | practically. But we needn't to be that pedantic. > | > | If no any reason for the two jumps, the code should be fixed to remains > | only ONE near jump. Btw, could you please do not show others email address when you reply? Change your mail client's configuration. I don't like my this email address be grabbed by spammers. thanks Coywolf -- Coywolf Qi Hunt Admin of http://GreatCN.org and http://LoveCN.org