Frank Cox <theatre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for that write-up. It's a truly fascinating read > and I can now say that I know a great deal more about the > basics of what's going on here than I knew a few minutes ago. A lot of people are confused on what x86-64 is. Programmatically, it's just another memory model. At the platform and processor itself, it's far more complex and various between AMD and Intel. E.g., Intel does not and cannot implement an I/O MMU in their aging bus architecture, long story. The I/O MMU is also a great source of errata at the same time. ;) > Is there any disadvantage to this patch? If it works as designed, no, it should be a great advantage. > Is there any reason why it should not or can't be included > in the mainstream kernel? Once it's no longer experimental and is actually trusted, no, it should go into the kernel. > It sounds to me very much like a winning idea -- so why don't > we see it built-in by default? It's currently experimental. > I'm thinking there must be a downside that I'm not aware of.... Not really. Virtual86 is designed for Protected386. Anything that works under Protected386 should work in x86-64 Long Mode. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
