Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 21:12:26 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Raoul Golan) Cc: fcawth@squid.umd.edu (Fred Cawthorne), agl@redline.ru, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 940804 (vaporware ;-) reboots the system either: Message-ID: <199504130412.VAA00140@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Apr 95 11:55:57 %2B1000." <199504130155.LAA07729@kiwi.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>check hacks been added as well? If the latest snap has only taken >out the memory test, I can conclude that it won't work on my >machine (since I've already tried to do that) Of course there have been hundreds (thousands?) of changes to the kernel sources since 2.0R - some of them fix bugs that caused the kernel to not boot on some machines. >I find it difficult to understand how it could be possible that >taking the memory test out alone could fix the problem - if the >problem isn't caught by the test, surely it would reappear later? The memory test was removed because it took too long on machines with a lot of memory (a lot is >= 64MB) and wasn't effective in finding real memory problems anyway. It wasn't removed with the intention of fixing any sort of boot problem. The kernel still does a check to make sure that what the BIOS tells it about the size of memory is actually true (which was the main intention of the original memory test). Since you seem to have relatively new hardware, it's extremely unlikely that your problem is in any way related to memory sizing. If I were going to troubleshoot the problem, I'd find out how far it actually gets before resetting. If it makes it as far as C code (i.e. past the code in locore), I'd put in printf's followed by DELAY(1000000) at various points to find where it dies. -DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504130412.VAA00140>