Date: 18 Nov 1998 22:34:20 -0600 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Marius Bendiksen <Marius.Bendiksen@scancall.no>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, rnordier@nordier.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD on i386 memory model Message-ID: <86ogq4gv1v.fsf@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: Matthew Dillon's message of "Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:42:50 -0800 (PST)" References: <199811171806.LAA03809@usr09.primenet.com> <3.0.5.32.19981118121341.00975ac0@mail.scancall.no> <199811181842.KAA06180@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> FreeBSD (and virtually all other operating systems) uses a >> two-layer design, not a multi-layer ring design. About the only >> thing you might see different between OS's is that some processors >> have a separate 'interrupt stack'. On Intel cpu's, however, the >> abstraction is useless due to the completely broken ring design >> because many supervisor instructions only work in ring 0. ring 1 >> and ring 2 are almost completely useless. So they're useless (for our purposes); I don't see why that makes their ring design broken. Could you please explain a bit more? Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86ogq4gv1v.fsf>