Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:3041 comp.unix.questions:12477 comp.unix.wizards:15254
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!apple!bloom-beacon!gatech!ken
From: ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: C bug causes double panic
Message-ID: <18250@gatech.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 89 00:43:46 GMT
References: <18227@gatech.edu> <9989@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii)
Organization: The House Of Fun...
Lines: 23

In article <9989@ihlpb.ATT.COM> gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly) writes:
>From article <18227@gatech.edu>, by ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii):
>> In article <2863@daisy.UUCP> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes:

[me wondering out loud about what the 80286 was designed for]

>
>Multics comes to mind...  64K segments, 4 access levels, transfer
>gates...
>

I thought about that, but it is my understanding (which surely could
be wrong) that multics is based on dynamicly allocated, variable size
segments of potentially large size.  Certainly, the 80286 doesn't fit
this criteria with its fixed size, 64K segments.  Also, doesn't
Multics use more than 4 rings of protection? 

Gates are a different story...a really good feature of the 80286.

The 80386 *IS*, however, Multics-on-a-chip...

	...ken seefried iii
	   ken@gatech.edu