Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:58:43 -0600 From: jlemon@americantv.com (Jonathan Lemon) To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: tri@iki.fi, current@freebsd.org, emulation@freebsd.org, phk@critter.dk.tfs.com Subject: Re: vm86 in current? Message-ID: <Mutt.19970204125843.jlemon@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <199702041847.FAA32304@godzilla.zeta.org.au>; from Bruce Evans on Feb 5, 1997 05:47:58 %2B1100 References: <199702041847.FAA32304@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans writes: > >BTW, are there any objections if I grow the trapframe/intrframe/clockframe > >structures by 4 more words? It would only affect things that do sizeof(), > >and perhaps the kernel debugger. Otherwise, a new vm86frame structure will > >be needed, with a little bit of typecasting back and forth. > > It would be bogus because the standard trapframe doesn't actually have > the extra words. However, perhaps you can fudge the extra words by > setting tss_esp0 16 lower. This is what I've already done. I just wanted to see if I could get rid of the (struct trapframe_vm86) and use the reg[tXXXX] constructs instead. Besides, SS and ESP are not actually present for traps/interrupts from the kernel, either. -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970204125843.jlemon>