From owner-freebsd-emulation Mon Feb 3 10:18:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA12187 for emulation-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from sumatra.americantv.com (sumatra.americantv.com [199.184.181.250]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA12182 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:18:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from right.PCS (right.pcs. [148.105.10.31]) by sumatra.americantv.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA24436; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:33:39 -0600 (CST) Received: (jlemon@localhost) by right.PCS (8.6.13/8.6.4) id SAA14152; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:21:44 GMT Message-ID: 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 ??? References: <199702030427.PAA05241@solsbury-hill.home> <199702030814.SAA04986@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.56e Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199702030814.SAA04986@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>; from Michael Smith on Feb 3, 1997 18:44:50 +1030 Sender: owner-emulation@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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