Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 14:48:10 +0200 (SAST) From: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, rnordier@nordier.com, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/boot/biosboot table.c Message-ID: <199905251248.OAA13517@ceia.nordier.com> In-Reply-To: <199905251232.WAA28341@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "May 25, 1999 10:32:19 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > >> My version passes the typed-in device name to the kernel and the kernel > >> ignores the boot blocks' guess of the major if it can make sense of > >> the name. I might finish this if anyone still uses the old boot blocks. > ^ else > > >I'm hoping that we can start dropping the /sys/i386/boot stuff, > >with the probable temporary exception of netboot, within the next > >few weeks, unless there are serious objections to doing so. > > I hoped we could drop the new boot blocks :-). I don't plan to use them. > (Your boot2 is a neat hack, but is even more hackish than biosboot.) For myself, I don't much mind if we go that way :-). However, maintaining two lots of code is just confusing. Quite seriously, though (and with no particular irony implied), I'm curious to know why you regard the boot2 stuff as "more hackish". At least one practical feature of the new boot blocks is that they are BIOS geometry-independent, which is certainly useful. And they certain appear to have fewer bugs: though I may just be pressing the wrong buttons. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905251248.OAA13517>