Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:21:43 -0600 From: jlemon@americantv.com (Jonathan Lemon) To: suttonj@interconnect.com.au (Joel Sutton) Cc: emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: doscmd vs ??? Message-ID: <Mutt.19970203122143.jlemon@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <199702030814.SAA04986@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>; from Michael Smith on Feb 3, 1997 18:44:50 %2B1030 References: <199702030427.PAA05241@solsbury-hill.home> <199702030814.SAA04986@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith writes: > Joel Sutton stands accused of saying: > > Would there be much difficulty is getting a set of kernel patches for > > us release users (2.1.6) ?? I guess was I'm asking is - Does the new > > vm86 kernel code rely on facilities in current? > > Sean was working on a 2.1.6 system, so I would think that you wouldn't > have too much trouble fitting his patches to your kernel. Just be aware > that they _don't_ work properly, and unexpected things can wedge your > system tight. The initial changes that I made to Sean's patches were fairly trivial; I'm not even sure what the main showstopper was. I suspect it may have had something to do with the sigcode trampoline in locore.s; in -current, the end of the trampoline is now aligned on a longword boundary, while it wasn't earlier, according to the vm-960919 diffs. At the moment, I'm attempting to eliminate the private VM86 return, and have everything exit in the normal manner. I'm most of the way there, and hope to finish up this week. As for 2.1.6, that shouldn't be a problem; I can try to generate a set of patches against a 2.1.6 system after I get -current working. -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970203122143.jlemon>