Jan Klötzke <jan.kloetzke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That sounds indeed like the best solution. It probably wouldn't > > even > > hurt to keep the area around - we might want to have a similar > > solution > > for APM; at least it seems to help some buggy implementations to > > make > > that address range available. > Ok, I'm about to revise my patch to provide a vm86() kernel function. > I have > an idea on how to implement it but it will take some time... Great, thanks! About keeping the area around, as I proposed above: that might not be a good idea after all, since at least accessing the first page should always lead to a page fault if possible. > To make area/mapping stuff more clear let me summarize the > requirements: > * A private area on 0x000--0x502 with the real values copied from > the > physical RAM > * Most propably another private area in the 640kb range for some > enry/exit > code and stack > * A identity mapping of the 0xA0000--0xFFFFF range Sounds fine to me. Bye, Axel.