Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!ditsydh.syd.dit.CSIRO.AU!evans
From: evans@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Bruce.Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Virtual addresses
Message-ID: <1991May17.155200.11358@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU>
Date: 17 May 91 15:52:00 GMT
References: <53697@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991May16.171429.438@email.tuwien.ac.at>
Organization: CSIRO Division of Info Tech, Sydney, Australia
Lines: 17

In article <1991May16.171429.438@email.tuwien.ac.at> hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Holzer) writes:
>
>I vote for #1. As far as I can see, MM does very little without aid by
>the kernel, so making separating it from the kernel makes things more
>complicated, not easier.

There's one very important thing that it does that won't work from the
kernel: calling FS to read() executables.

>(Maybe the 64k segment limit of the 8086 was
>the reason to separate it from kernel, I don't know the sizes offhand)

kernel+mm would fit easily. fs data space (cache) would not fit. I think
the linker for an ancient version did not support separate I&D. 64K is
much more limiting than 64K+64K.
-- 
Bruce Evans		evans@syd.dit.csiro.au