Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:36:20 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> Cc: nate@yogotech.com, mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer Thinkpads Message-ID: <14885.19620.393768.576442@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <200011291814.eATIEQ833818@pau-amma.whistle.com> References: <14885.16754.561866.45663@nomad.yogotech.com> <200011291814.eATIEQ833818@pau-amma.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> >Didn't Robert shrink it back to 1 sector after 4.1 was released? It > >> >would be interesting to know if the 'smaller' bootblock worked as well. > > >> No; jhb found that there was a bug in the boot0 code & fixed it. My > >> archived mail shows that most of the work occurred on 04 August. > > >Hmm, the log message I'm reading says: > > > date: 2000/10/02 17:30:22; author: rnordier; state: Exp; lines: +77 -151 > > Go back to occupying just a single sector, reverting r1.17 - r1.20. > >[SNIP > > Right; I expressed myself poorly: what I meant by the above is that the > thing that fixed the boot-hang (back in August) was not a change in the > size of boot0, but jhb locating & fixing a bug. (I meant no slight to > either jhb or rnordier; I hope that's clear.) > > >This is the last commit made to the boot0 code for i386. Ahh, but this > >code didn't make it back into FreeBSD 4.X, so 4.2 *might* still be > >succeptible if this is a 2-sector boot0 bug. > > True, though other evidence (in this thread) indicates that at least > part of the problem occurs even if a single sector is all that is used. Yep. And, it appears that with JHB's fix, the hang still occurs on the IBM's as well. :( Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14885.19620.393768.576442>