Fix informations in Userspace/Handling_Interrupts #115
Conversation
| uint64_t rsp1; | ||
| uint64_t rsp2; | ||
| uint64_t reserved1; | ||
| uint64_t reserved2; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering, could be more readable to keep reserved1 and reserverd2 changing the size, instead of deleting one? To just try to keep it similar to the image (although i know that even the IST fields are represented as two 32bits chunks).
What do you think? (@DeanoBurrito any input from you? )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I was wondering what was the "better" solution. I chose to remove a field rather than changing the size, as in my mind the less "useless" / reserved field the better. Also given all the other fields are already uint64_t having the reserved one as well can remove doubt about a typo I think, but still very subjective
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree it's definitely subjective, for me I think the single (albeit misaligned) uint64_t is the best way in terms of readability.
| Ok, so i'm happy to merge it, @AntoninRuan if you want you can add yourself in the Acknowledgments file here: https://github.com/dreamportdev/Osdev-Notes/blob/master/99_Appendices/I_Acknowledgments.md |
| @AntoninRuan i'm going to merge it during the weekend, if you want to add yourself to the acknowledgments you have until sunday/monday (more or lesS) |
3 participants
Fixed some minor mistakes in the description of the TSS format compared to Intel's documentation (Figure 9-11 of Volume 3 Chapter 9).
And a wrong bit count in the TSS system descriptor, where bit 55:52 example value was 5 bits instead of 4.