[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Does Flushing the Queue after PG REALLY a Necessity?
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 Qi Hunt
Admin of and
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.060 / U:5.384 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site