Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:53:30 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: dg@root.com, bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Foof! bug fix? Message-ID: <19971115115330.29942@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971115102143.00a3d430@mail.lariat.org>; from Brett Glass on Nov 11, 1997 at 10:21:43AM -0700 References: <Your <3.0.5.32.19971114175737.00928b90@mail.lariat.org> <3.0.5.32.19971115102143.00a3d430@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 11, 1997 at 10:21:43AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > The main thing to watch for, in this case, is the potential for yet other faults. > Intel probably recommended a page fault because it supercedes EVERYTHING, making it > pretty darn safe. But if a segment fault is used instead, will there ever be > a situation where (a) a multiple fault occurs, or (b) something supercedes the > segment fault or interferes with its processing? I don't have my Intel manuals > right here, so I'm not able to work though all of the arcane possibilities. Actually, according to my copy of the Intel manual, the priority of a page fault and segment limit are equivalent. However, I've had a report of this patch not working on a machine, so perhaps something else is at play here. -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971115115330.29942>