Message-ID: <331EF30B.1429@post.comstar.ru>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 08:38:35 -0800
From: Dim Zegebart <zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru>
Reply-To: zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru
Organization: zager AT post DOT comstar DOT ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Tony O'Bryan" <aho450s AT nic DOT smsu DOT edu>
CC: DJGPP Mail List <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Ring 0?
References: <5fivnk$cfc AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca> <331d6ccb DOT 929877 AT ursa DOT smsu DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tony O'Bryan wrote:
> 
> On 5 Mar 1997 05:18:44 GMT, ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA (Paul Derbyshire) wrote:
> 
> >What exactly is "ring 0"? A page on optimizing code using CWSDPR0
> >mentioned it. But it's not clear to me what it is. I assume it isn't a
> >modem thing...:)
> 
> Ring 0 is an operating system term.  It represents the highest permission level
> in a protected mode system.  This is where the OS kernal code operates.  It has
> direct access to all the hardware and has no supervisor program watching its
> every move (since it _IS_ the supervisor).

I think you are a little bit incorrect. Ring 0 is not originaly an
operating system term.
It's term of CPU's hardware architecture. And you absolutely right - OS
kernel running
at ring 0 level (it may vary from OS to OS).

-- 
Regards,
Dim Zegebart,
Moscow Russia.