On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:33:02 +0100 (MEZ), Ruediger Ihle wrote:
>VMGlobalToProcess refuses to work on mapped memory areas.
In some cases, aliases of aliases are disallowed. In others, they probably just don't
work.
If I'd known about this three or four years ago (or more), I'd probably have jumped
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:33:02 +0100 (MEZ), Ruediger Ihle wrote:
>>I've checked this in detail now: DOS32FLATDS may be used
>>at INIT time of DEVICEs as well.
>You are right ! But my tests here showed, that it will only work for
>memory areas that are truly allocated by VMAlloc. I do get strange
>
On 10 Jan 2003 17:38:30 UT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I've checked this in detail now: DOS32FLATDS may be used
>at INIT time of DEVICEs as well.
You are right ! But my tests here showed, that it will only work for
memory areas that are truly allocated by VMAlloc. I do get strange
results, if th
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:23:51 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>>There seems to no way to issue diagnostic messages from PSD init - oh
>>well!
>
>Just send out the diagnostics via serial port. :-)
Fortunately, my brain is missing such kind of gadget!
Ciao,
Dani
---
To unsubscribe yourself fro
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:18:23 +0100 (CET), Daniela Engert wrote:
>There seems to no way to issue diagnostic messages from PSD init - oh
>well!
Just send out the diagnostics via serial port. :-)
cu, Kiewitz
---
To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message
to [EMAIL
Hello Scott,
a Happy New Year to you!
#include
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:04:05 -0600 (CST), Scott Garfinkle wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:46:29 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires the code to
run at ring 0. I seem to remember, that I had to move some
>>>I'
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:09:06 -0600 (CST), Scott Garfinkle wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:09:13 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>
>>But during INIT it's not possible to use Ring-0 selectors?!
>>That's why I used this dual-selector approach initially.
>Maybe I'm missing something, but it should be possible
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:09:13 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>But during INIT it's not possible to use Ring-0 selectors?!
>That's why I used this dual-selector approach initially.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it should be possible at init time (only) to
manipulate
ring 0 data directly.
---
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:04:05 -0600 (CST), Scott Garfinkle wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:46:29 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires the code to
run at ring 0. I seem to remember, that I had to move some
>>>I've checked this in detail now: DOS32FLATDS may be u
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:46:29 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>>>Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires the code to
>>>run at ring 0. I seem to remember, that I had to move some
>>I've checked this in detail now: DOS32FLATDS may be used at INIT time
...
>This means that OS/2 will remap the selector at
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:38:07 +0100 (CET), Daniela Engert wrote:
>>> Memory objects in this so called linear address
>>>space are addressable from any context by means of
>>>the DOS32FLATDS selector;
>>Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires the code to
>>run at ring 0. I seem to remember, that
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:03:30 +0100 (MEZ), Ruediger Ihle wrote:
>> Memory objects in this so called linear address
>>space are addressable from any context by means of
>>the DOS32FLATDS selector;
>
>Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires the code to
>run at ring 0. I seem to remember, that I h
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 19:01:28 +0100 (CET), Daniela Engert wrote:
>>Also because most GCONFIG internals are pure assembly, a flat-selector could make
>things worse. If I
mistype
>>something now and a bad offset is used somewhere, it will result in either corrupted
>area/data-segment or
>>except
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:47:36 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>Also because most GCONFIG internals are pure assembly, a flat-selector could make
>things worse. If I mistype
>something now and a bad offset is used somewhere, it will result in either corrupted
>area/data-segment or
>exception. By using
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 18:14:50 +0100 (CET), Daniela Engert wrote:
>>>Three times NO! You don't need such kind of things. And if you insist
>>>on a GDT selector, why don't you setup a single big one?
>>Because AllocGDTSel is limited to 64k by IBM :-)
>>Three times NO to IBM ;-)
>Nobody stops you from
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:44:31 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>>Three times NO! You don't need such kind of things. And if you insist
>>on a GDT selector, why don't you setup a single big one?
>
>Because AllocGDTSel is limited to 64k by IBM :-)
>Three times NO to IBM ;-)
Nobody stops you from setting up
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:09:36 +0100 (CET), Daniela Engert wrote:
Memory objects in this so called linear address
space are addressable from any context by means of
the DOS32FLATDS selector;
>>>Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires the code to
>>>run at ring 0. I seem to remember,
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:21:22 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:03:30 +0100 (MEZ), Ruediger Ihle wrote:
>>> Memory objects in this so called linear address
>>>space are addressable from any context by means of
>>>the DOS32FLATDS selector;
>>Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:03:30 +0100 (MEZ), Ruediger Ihle wrote:
>> Memory objects in this so called linear address
>>space are addressable from any context by means of
>>the DOS32FLATDS selector;
>Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires the code to
>run at ring 0. I seem to remember, that I had
On 30 Dec 2002 17:20:23 UT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Memory objects in this so called linear address
>space are addressable from any context by means of
>the DOS32FLATDS selector;
Are you sure ? AFAIK, DOS32FLATDS requires the code to
run at ring 0. I seem to remember, that I had to move some
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:20:04 +0100 (CET), Daniela Engert wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:59:04 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>
>>The limit on devices is 8192 and this would make 8k SUB-Block space per device.
>>The problem with that limit is that I would need to allocate 2048 (!) GDT-selectors,
>becaus
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:59:04 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>The limit on devices is 8192 and this would make 8k SUB-Block space per device.
>The problem with that limit is that I would need to allocate 2048 (!) GDT-selectors,
>because I need to map the
>space for Ring-0 *and* Ring-3 and that's the wh
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:59:04 +0100 (CET), Jimi wrote:
>I think about limiting to 16 or 32MB, resulting in 2k or 4k SUB-Block average
>possible size per device.
>SUB-Block minimum size is 512 bytes and most of the time that should be enough. Often
>devices do not
even
>need a SUB-Block at all.
Hi everyone!
I'm just asking myself at what limit I should put on the SUB-Block area.
SUB-Block area contains additional information to devices like e.g. device-name (for
PnP and USB), the
device proposals (Resource requirements) and extra information like for bridges and so
on.
One SUB-Block
24 matches
Mail list logo
