From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 13:40:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7039316A4E4 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:40:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01D043FA3 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:40:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 14680 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 21:39:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 11 Nov 2003 21:39:59 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hABLdZce021282; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:39:36 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3FB149A1.2070105@ec.rr.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:39:34 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Jason X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Found a problem with new source code X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:40:20 -0000 On 11-Nov-2003 Jason wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >>On 11-Nov-2003 Jason wrote: >> >> >>>I just wanted to let someone know that my buildworld fails at >>>/usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c at line 362. I get an undefined >>>error for RB_BOOTINFO, by adding #define RB_BOOTINFO 0x1f it worked. >>>Also it failed at sendmail.fc or something, I don't use send mail so I >>>just did not build it. It looks like someone already reported the >>>device apic problem. I just tryed option smp and device apic on my >>>single proc athlon, panic on boot unless I chose no apic or is it no >>>acpi(?) at boot. >>> >>> >> >>No ACPI is what you can choose at boot. Can you post the panic message? >> >> >> >>>By the way, why adding the smp options do any good for my machine? I >>>mostly care about speed, but it seems it might just make the os unstable >>>for me. >>> >>> >> >>You can always compile a custom kernel without SMP if you wish. device >>apic can be helpful because PCI devices do not have to share interrupts. >>Enabling SMP in GENERIC means that SMP machines now work out of the box. >>It also means that a sysadmin can use one kernel across both UP and SMP >>machines in a hetergeneous environment which can ease system >>administration in some cases. >> >> >> > I like the idea of not sharing irqs. Can I have apic without smp on? Yes. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/