From:	Engard Ferenc <fery AT pons DOT sote DOT hu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: pm and rm interrupt handlers vs. emm386
Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:44:39 +0100
Organization:	IIF
Lines:	24
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.96.990212164029.25362C-100000@Pons.sote.hu>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990211101748 DOT 7662P-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	pons.sote.hu
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990211101748.7662P-100000@is>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>
>If you have already read the FAQ, please ask more specific questions,
>based on what is described there.

I have read that; just I think I wasn't clear enough. My question is
that it is enough to write a real-mode handler, or (if my program
spend much time in protected mode), I need to write a protected-mode
handler too for the best performance?

Thanks:
Circum

PS: It just came to my mind... While the interrupts are disabled (I
suppose I need to disable it in a hardware irq-handler), other
hardware interrupts are lost? (E.g., data coming from kbd/serial is
lost?)

 __  @
/  \    _   _                                           Engard Ferenc
l    | ( \ /  | | (\/)                      mailto:s-fery AT kkt DOT sote DOT hu
\__/ | |   \_ \_/ I  I                    http://pons.sote.hu/~s-fery

- Raw text -