Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!rpi!rpi.edu!deven From: deven@rpi.edu (Deven Corzine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: MEMF_PHYSICAL? Message-ID: Date: 24 May 89 22:27:15 GMT References: <6914@cbmvax.UUCP> <6943@cbmvax.UUCP> <6966@cbmvax.UUCP> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Organization: RPI Public Access Workstation Lab, Troy NY Lines: 43 In-reply-to: thomas@cbmvax.UUCP's message of 24 May 89 15:12:37 GMT In article <6966@cbmvax.UUCP> thomas@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Thomas QA) writes: In article deven@rpi.edu (Deven Corzine) writes: > Fine. But the RKM's say interrupt code and data MUST be in > MEMF_PUBLIC memory. Why? I don't know, but MEMF_PUBLIC has never been defined too clearly since it has never done anything. Quite so. Perhaps, as Matt suggested, it should indeed be done away with. > Regardless, I give up. It wasn't MY idea in the first place, and I > thought it was stupid, also. I simply passed it along for whatever > (small) value it might have. Sorry if I sounded harsh in my reply, I just wanted to make sure that all the issues were understood. I understood immediately. That book misinterpreted. Can't ever believe what you read. *sigh* That's what the net is about anyway. It allows us to toss around ideas and see where they go. True, but this one got tossed around too much to be worthwhile. A simple clarafication would have done well enough. I've enjoyed this thread tremendously! I haven't. If I'm going to be flamed or attacked for something I post, I'd rather it be for MY ideas -- those I can usually defend adequately. And modify when valid objections are raised. On the other hand, I *did* enjoy the thread with Randell (mostly) about "Unix V7 functionality under (or along with) AmigaDOS?"... Deven -- shadow@[128.113.10.2] Deven T. Corzine (518) 272-5847 shadow@[128.113.10.201] 2346 15th St. Pi-Rho America deven@rpitsmts.bitnet Troy, NY 12180-2306 <> "Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible." - A.K.