Re: Does Flushing the Queue after PG REALLY a Necessity?

[Coywolf Qi Hunt]

Randy.Dunlap wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:36:07 +0800 Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
>
> | Right, I also think removing the flush code is risky. Thanks very much, 
> | chapter 18 is what i was looking for. I recalled in an old intel 
> | booklet, named like something 386 system guide, says JMP after PG as 
> | well as PE. But I didn't have that book at hand and didn't find any e-doc.
>
> I guess that's the 80386 System Software Writer's Guide.
> Ch. 6: Initialization.
> Yes, it does JMP after setting PE and after enabling PG.
> Any JMP.

Yes, it's that booklet, very thin.

> | However, in 18.27.3, "The sequence bounded by the MOV and JMP 
> | instructions should be identity" implies no JMP is also viable 
> | practically. But we needn't to be that pedantic.
> | 
> | If no any reason for the two jumps, the code should be fixed to remains 
> | only ONE near jump.


Btw, could you please do not show others email address when you reply? 
Change your mail client's configuration. I don't like my this email 
address be grabbed by spammers. thanks


	Coywolf



--
Coywolf Qi Hunt
Admin of http://GreatCN.org and http://LoveCN.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/