From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 2 11:36:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5FF516A402; Tue, 2 May 2006 11:36:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8A943D53; Tue, 2 May 2006 11:36:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [172.23.170.140] (helo=anti-virus02-07) by smtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FatB1-0003Sa-UK; Tue, 02 May 2006 12:36:23 +0100 Received: from [80.192.58.117] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by asmtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FatB1-0007lb-5W; Tue, 02 May 2006 12:36:23 +0100 Message-ID: <44574436.4000105@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:36:22 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060305 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <445581DE.50901@centtech.com> <20060501130354.GA17701@toler.leo.org> <20060501130704.GA57024@gothmog.pc> <200605011402.10403.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060502053131.GC62424@gothmog.pc> In-Reply-To: <20060502053131.GC62424@gothmog.pc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Boot manager beep (revisited) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:36:26 -0000 Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >On 2006-05-01 14:02, John Baldwin wrote: > > >>How about the patch below. It restores the behavior of the beep >> >>only happening for invalid input by axeing the BSD/OS partition >>type from the lookup table. >> >> > >Much better, since this is the behavior we initially had, as you >explained. > >Thanks :) > > > Seconded! Thanks, --Alex