On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
hybrid crossing between the V7 and the linux method. Like allocating a
relatively small struct, but then make it an option to grow the struct by
making a linked list of these structs. Given the low computative power of
The struct size is fixed - I
Alan Cox wrote:
> hybrid crossing between the V7 and the linux method.
Like allocating a
> relatively small struct, but then make it an option to grow the struct
by
> making a linked list of these structs. Given the low computative
power of
The struct size is fixed - I dont follow you
If I
From what I understand, using the task struct to keep track of sleeping
processes, limits the number of processes the kernel can handle. If you
In a sense since wakeup is O(N) by number of processes
processes, you can increase functionality. If the number of sleeping
processes is more then
various extended features (which few use) can then be easily added
on a personal basis. I doubt that ELKS has ever run more than 15
processes, for instance.
For reference the standard V7 builds were for about 30-60 processes (60 being
a big box).
: For ELKS it isnt worth it. For real Linux it would be (and in fact it does
: it all with lists)
Although these suggestions about making extendable sleep structs
are laudable, I, for one, agree with Alan. I think ELKS is a great
learning tool, and should function simply. I've found that in
cases even ELKS code is too complicated. Alan has pointed this
out with the #ifdef madness and other very little used options.
Most of IFDEFs were there due to bugs in the source .. old code was just
#if 0ed out and replaced with new one. At least that's what i did in
parts of kernel i
Could anyone explain me what is a V7 like wakeup mechanism?
Old old unix systems took the address of the thing they wanted to wait on
and placed it in the task structure. Since the number of processes is pretty
low its easy for the CPU to walk the process table on a wakeup checking
if the
Scott Dudley writes:
Compiling with bcc, I'm getting the error "error: initializer too
complicated". It's in a function prototype. What should I look for?
bcc does not like function prototypes. Try specifying the -ansi flags
which tells bcc to remove the code through a prototype
I bet it definitely works (boot on XT drive) if one disables the onboard
IDE first.
The problem I see is using IDE and MFM/RLL drives at the same time,
which might prove difficult.
To boot XT drives on an AT+, one usually has to disable the IDE drives
so that the BIOS doesn't go looking there.
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all!
I've got a 808[68] maschine with a 40 MB harddisk with MS-DOS 3.3
installed.
I want to use this maschine with ELKS in future so I decided to make a
backup of the disk first. Can I just move the whole disk with it's
adapter card
BTW: Do you, Jakob, or somebady else know, whether one has to "park"
the xt-disk before shutting down the computer? The guy who gave me the
xt insisted that I had to use the "park" utility that he had written
for the disk before switching power off. AFAIR it "parks" the head of
the disk on
I've got a 808[68] maschine with a 40 MB harddisk with MS-DOS 3.3
installed.
I want to use this maschine with ELKS in future so I decided to make a
backup of the disk first. Can I just move the whole disk with it's
adapter card to my Pentium? I noticed that there is a xt disk driver
for
On Sat, 29 May 1999, David Murn wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 1999, Luke (boo) Farrar wrote:
Is it a config option? It doesn't happen using sash, but does with ash.
Probably because sash's inbuilt ls isn't using signals, so doesn't need to
setup a signal handler.
And why doesn't 286
On Thu, 27 May 1999, Luke (boo) Farrar wrote:
Is it a config option? It doesn't happen using sash, but does with ash.
Probably because sash's inbuilt ls isn't using signals, so doesn't need to
setup a signal handler.
And why doesn't 286 protected mode stuff compile?
Did it ever?
I'm just
14 matches
Mail list logo
