X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
	mime-version; bh=8xW/4Wv+5+D8+Iwvcmtx1r5eP9NocYh9ErdjBlKk8XA=; b=ja95t9O4AKYg
	jC7DeB0u+bNqn06sLq1rRxGmiMgCOUn1NnEKzRUc+JFvgay2ikGSuDra49GCdqzQfAcCGF28umZry
	01cyCXPno91tLSLbAsh0xu0ULo+cb4PieHvb+tkAhaD4Gwk9uOvTshUrDqw3B6drMmNQl9hkIgbKw
	jaP09ejBxAtWgfio1BzfzN8EtwV86A3Ig3lG9ijVtpoNMdqCkf5AEpQUzJhk67//Gk9XGa485aeFV
	aEHQsG2Wl8/bBBXaIB6wyPjUNBOQIKV7AiOt3o3gaYpMAZqQSFDnTGDBCAuFha7ltuEdZ/XMDO18m
	7iZqWwl1kdaPxZ9RBsRz4g==;
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:10:10 +0200
Message-Id: <86le78wjv1.fsf@gnu.org>
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: Pali <pali AT pali DOT im>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <20240225165154.aiasgj6e6uipmt42@pali> (message from Pali on Sun,
	25 Feb 2024 17:51:54 +0100)
Subject: Re: DJGPP documentation updates
References: <20240213210641 DOT 52jnxonf3zuc2qxw AT pali>
 <CAA2C=vA9F0qL8vAw+FA5AtVavsEZqJKY=UrMz8MbpQa1POqjLA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <86mss3xfu9 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <20240217155210 DOT cs5mqv3izh5jlvee AT pali>
 <86eddbt6e3 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
 <20240225115526 DOT mnx5jogkevlbjwu4 AT pali>
 <86y1b8wvx9 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <20240225165154 DOT aiasgj6e6uipmt42 AT pali>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 17:51:54 +0100
> From: Pali <pali AT pali DOT im>
> Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
> 
> On Sunday 25 February 2024 14:49:38 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 12:55:26 +0100
> > > From: Pali <pali AT pali DOT im>
> > > Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
> > > 
> > > Hello, I have there another documentation change. It fixes mistake in
> > > __dpmi_map_conventional_memory_in_memory_block() function. This function
> > > takes linear address, not the physical one (as defined in DPMI 1.0 spec).
> > 
> > What exactly is the difference between a physical address below 1MB
> > and the linear address there?
> 
> I'm not sure now if I understood it correctly. But my understanding of
> the spec is that DPMI host which supports paging may page-out also
> linear addresses below 1 MB.

Really?  IME, no DPMI host does that.  DOS memory is always mapped
1:1, AFAIR.

> There are DPMI functions 0602H and 0603H which client may use to
> enable/disable paging for memory below 1 MB.  And once paging is
> active then virtual linear address does not have to match physical
> address.

Maybe the documentation should actually include all that, instead of
just using the confusing term "linear address" for what most DJGPP
hackers will think as "physical address".