Do we have people for SOCAL 2010 this time?
> From: "Gareth J. Greenaway" <gareth(a)socallinuxexpo.org>
> Date: January 1, 2010 12:30:09 AM GMT+03:00
> To: aleksey(a)reactos.org
> Cc: joe(a)socallinuxexpo.org
> Subject: Invitation for ReactOS to Southern California Linux Expo 8x
>
> Greetings Aleksey,
>
> I hope this email finds you doing well. I wanted to formerly
> invite the ReactOS project to attend and exhibit the Southern
> California Linux Expo, which will be taking place February
> 19th-21st, 2010 in Los Angeles, California at the Westin LAX hotel.
>
> This would be an excellent venue to showcase all the great work
> going into the ReactOS project. We would provide a complementary
> booth including all the usual amenities as well as complementary
> passes to the show.
>
> If this sounds like something that the ReactOS project might be
> interested in, please let us know as space will be filling up quickly.
>
> Thanks and Happy New Year!
> Gareth
>
> --
> Gareth J. Greenaway | gareth(a)socallinuxexpo.org
> Voice - 877-831-2569 x130
> Southern California Linux Expo
> http://www.socallinuxexpo.org
>
ros-arm-bringup(a)svn.reactos.org schrieb:
> Author: ros-arm-bringup
> Date: Sat Jan 2 02:34:27 2010
> New Revision: 44871
>
...
> @@ -790,9 +791,138 @@
> .globl _KiTrap2
> .func KiTrap2
> _KiTrap2:
> -
> - /* FIXME: This is an NMI, nothing like a normal exception */
> - mov eax, 2
> + //
> + // Don't allow any other NMIs to come in for now
> + //
> + cli // Disable interrupts
>
But you know that CLI has no effect on NMIs?
Why don't you cache this instead of querying it for each TLB flush? Seems stupidly wasteful -- I thought the point was to "make it better"??
Isn't this what HalpGetFeatureBits is for?
On 2010-01-01, at 11:37 AM, ros-arm-bringup(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> + //
> + // Check for CPUID support
> + //
> + if (KeGetCurrentPrcb()->CpuID)
> + {
> + //
> + // Check for global bit in CPU features
> + //
> + __cpuid(CpuInfo, 1);
> + if (CpuInfo[3] & 0x2000)
> + {
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
sserapion(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> Add definitions for the x86bios emulator.
>
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=studies/windows/km/hal/api/x86bi
os/index.htm
>From the link: "The HAL in x86 builds of Windows Vista introduces a set of
functions for accessing the 16-bit firmware that Windows started from."
So you're adding functions from the x86 HAL in NT6 to our NT5.2-targeted
AMD64 HAL? Is it just me who gets confused here?
If it's alright, I'd like to hear some explanations.
Best regards,
Colin