From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Nov  7 22:06:36 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA24088
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:06:36 -0800
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (sri.MT.net [204.94.231.129])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA24079
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:06:27 -0800
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28061; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 23:08:34 -0700
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 23:08:34 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199511080608.XAA28061@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ideas from netbsd
In-Reply-To: <199511080558.WAA19408@phaeton.artisoft.com>
References: <199511080551.WAA28024@rocky.sri.MT.net>
	<199511080558.WAA19408@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > > There weren't any changes made.  When the 4.4Lite -> FreeBSD 2.X diffs
> > > > were made the x86 trees were radically different already, so the
> > > > problems weren't 'added' recently.  The differences in how we do x86
> > > > stuff goes way back.
> > > 
> > > Jack Vogel's SMP patches did not apply cleanly to -current without a
> > > lot of work, in part because of the locore.s changes since June.
> > 
> > Those changes are irrelevant to the discussion.  I had problems in
> > *March* because of the differences in the x86 support, let alone the
> > differences that both camps have made since then.  (I seem to remember
> > lots of x86 changes related to emulation made in the low-level stuff)
> 
> Except as testimony to the fact that the changes don't go all the way
> back to 4.4Lite.

The changes I'm speaking of do.  What I'm *attempting* to say is that
the NetBSD changes to add VM86() support are:
1) Not portable to any version FreeBSD
2) No longer portable to NetBSD

That's all.  VM86() code is your holy grail, and you are using it to
make points that aren't relevant to it.  I'm trying to inject a little
bit of factual information into the discussion to bring out the fact
that VM86() is *still* non-trivial to do, even given the NetBSD code.
{Especially for a non-kernel weenie like myself}


Nate