From owner-freebsd-bugs Fri Mar 3 17:46:09 1995 Return-Path: bugs-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id RAA08567 for bugs-outgoing; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 17:46:09 -0800 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA08561 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 17:46:05 -0800 Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin.Root.COM [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.8/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA27794; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 17:45:53 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA00347; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 17:45:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199503040145.RAA00347@corbin.Root.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: corbin.Root.COM: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Problems with 950210-SNAP In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Mar 95 16:02:00 MST." <9503032302.AA06483@cs.weber.edu> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 17:45:49 -0800 Sender: bugs-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> > > 1. BIOS memory reduced by 1K to 639K causing warning message, >> > > machine report 640K BIOS memory using the 2.0-RELEASE version >> >> > If your CMOS value has changes, I seriously consider testing to >> > see if you have an MBR virus or have rewritten your MBR. >> >> No Terry, this is simply caused by the fact that some BIOSes tend to >> steal 1 KB off the base memory to put their ``hard disk parameter >> table'' there. So when you ask the BIOS about base memory, they tell >> ya 639 K. AMI gave you the choice between the stolen kilobyte and >> placing the table on BIOS stack... > >I know. If you look in the system initialization code, you'll see >that this was patch one (by me) to 386BSD 0.1, at least in the >patchkit patch order. Nope. How long has it been since you looked at the code in FreeBSD? Too long I would say. >The problem is that he says that the amount reported is different >between the 2.0-RELEASE and the current snap. That's because we just added the message when the bootinfo structure support was added a month or two ago. -DG