From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 5 15:32:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA09338 for current-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA09331 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA06822; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:30:36 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199708052230.PAA06822@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) To: ejs@bfd.com (Eric J. Schwertfeger) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:30:36 -0700 (MST) Cc: mal@kairos.algonet.se, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Eric J. Schwertfeger" at Aug 5, 97 02:21:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > (*) Or was it _two_ of them? I have some faint memories they had to use > > two to make it work with a multi-process os. > > If I remember right, the 68010 had a limitation that made it difficult to > deal with page faults, so the second 68010's purpose was to take care of > page faults, then let the primary 68010 continue. Instruction restart was a problem on the 68010. The second processor ran one behind to handle the restart. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.