Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:33:23 -0800 From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, dyson@iquest.net, dick@tar.com, jplevyak@inktomi.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lockf and kernel threads Message-ID: <199903051833.KAA82111@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Mar 1999 10:23:39 PST." <199903051823.KAA49114@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Two things. > > First, ASTs were a VAXen thing and must be 'simulated' on every other > architecture, including intel. Well, if we adhere to the strict sense of the word you are probably correct. I would say that asynchronous delivery of events mechanism is NOT only a VAX thing. > Second, Intel's ring architecture is 100% *broken*. The only useful > rings are ring 0 and ring 3. That's it. The intermediate rings are no > better then a glorified user mode because most privilaged instructions > cannot be run in them. Thats probably true however for delivery of an AST I don't thing that we need priviliged instructions --- I could be wrong. Amancio 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?199903051833.KAA82111>