Thanks for the information.   It was truly illuminating.

Chris G. Demetriou writes:

 > The problem is with the missing system-specific PALcode ops that MILO
 > doesn't implement.  They deal with interrupt handling, and on a "real
 > OSF PALcode" system they _MUST_ be used or the system will not
 > function properly.  Given their nature, it makes the most sense to
 > implement them in the PALcode, and not to special-case them in the
 > kernel for different "real" vs. "non-real' PALcode types.
 > 

Ahh.. so this explains at least one reason why the linux people have
no truley generic kernel, and why their code is littered with #ifdefs
which distinguish betweeen SRM/MILO systems and each system type.
Right? 

Just out of personal curiosity, which PALcode operations does the MILO
version of the palcode not implement?

Drew