From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jan 6 19:29:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id TAA24856 for current-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:29:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id TAA24851 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:29:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id UAA13739; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:19:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199701070319.UAA13739@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: kernel w/o source? [MOD_DECL in lkm.h] To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:19:14 -0700 (MST) Cc: wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu, jb@cimlogic.com.au, current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199701060602.QAA29343@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jan 6, 97 04:32:56 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Do I need to beat the "why we have no vm86 support yet" gong again? If > anyone thinks it'll help, I will 8) > > Yes, we could do a BIOS disk driver. I don't know whether it would > actually require vm86 support (which is for running user processes, > not kernel code), but it would be a shade hairy. Certainly it would > be easiest to run it in a user process. It seems to me that we have working APM calls even without a real VM86(). It occurs to me that saving the first 640K and mapping it into the address space of the putative caller using the same mechanism as APM would likely work... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.