Re: Supervisor mode & multitasking

["Julian F. Reschke" <fjr010@email.mot.com>]

draco@piwo.bl.pg.gda.pl%INTERNET wrote:

> > > I think it is a guaranteed system feature that there is no task
> > > switching in supervisor mode. Why would you want to change that?
> >
> > The way I recall it, this was claimed to be subject to change, but you
> > may well be right.
> 
> Yes, the information that the rule titled "the supervisor doesn't
> multitask" may go away, can be read in many places across the source

The question is more: is it documented somewhere else, meaning in the
API
documentation (mint.doc and so on)? And besides: what exactly do we get
out of that change? Could you please give an example? Eric had his
reasons not to touch that behaviour...

> tree. I am very sorry to write that, because before I came to the MiNT
> list, I thought that Julian Reschke, who wrote the Profibuch and was
> generally considered well experienced specialist for Atari things, will
> be more constructive. Now I see he generally tends to complain about every
> change we discuss here and isn't very helpful either. Julian, please...
> don't damage your legend for newbies. Your scandalic answer regarding a
> skeleton XFS ("MiNT is full of examples...." while MiNT is over 1.2 MB of
> source code!!!) I'll remember to the end of my life.

I really would like to know what your personal problem is.

Somebody asked me about information about XFS programming, and I pointed
him
exactly to the place where *I* got my information from -- meaning all
the
example XFS code in MiNT. And small XFS modules like procfs.c are very
readable.

I have the feeling that everbody who questions whether a majot change to
MiNT makes really sense becomes automatically your enemy. Correct?

Now I agree that there are lots of places where MiNT changes *would* be
a good idea. Like getting rid of all these chaos in the biosfs and to
instead
rely totally on HSMODEM. Or to rewrite TOSFS to get rid of the slow
old GEMDOS bases interface.

Regards, jr