From owner-freebsd-mobile Wed Nov 29 10:36:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8873C37B401 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23474; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:36:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA17731; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:36:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14885.19620.393768.576442@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:36:20 -0700 (MST) To: David Wolfskill Cc: nate@yogotech.com, mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer Thinkpads In-Reply-To: <200011291814.eATIEQ833818@pau-amma.whistle.com> References: <14885.16754.561866.45663@nomad.yogotech.com> <200011291814.eATIEQ833818@pau-amma.whistle.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >> >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