From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 6 09:26:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA29063 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:26:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from word.smith.net.au (word.smith.net.au [202.0.75.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA29054 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:26:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.smith.net.au [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA00364; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:52:17 +1030 (CST) Message-Id: <199711061722.DAA00364@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Chuck Robey cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: >64MB In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Nov 1997 07:40:21 CDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 03:52:16 +1030 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > > > > Speaking of vm86(), why not just use real-mode? It's easier and much > > > better for compatibility while booting. > > > > How do you copy the kernel into memory > 1M in real mode? If you could > > elaborate on this (and how to *stay* in real mode while running over > > 1M, ie. so that the kzip pass and subsequent real-mode startup > > requirements could be met), I'd be *very*happy* > > Huh? Is that the limitation? That's ths crux. That and the fact that our toolchain doesn't generate real-mode code very well, so what we produce runs best in protected mode. We just drop back to real mode to call the BIOS. Check the boot sources for a better picture of what goes on; if you have any ideas, we're always open. 8) mike