From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 11 22:27:50 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E4016A400; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:27:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8877643D45; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:27:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3BMRmqk019573; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:27:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: Maxim Sobolev Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:03:25 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200604110439.k3B4dTOD072774@repoman.freebsd.org> <200604111358.41929.jhb@freebsd.org> <443C19A9.1000108@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <443C19A9.1000108@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604111803.27889.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1393/Tue Apr 11 16:22:45 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/boot/i386/cdboot cdboot.s X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:27:50 -0000 On Tuesday 11 April 2006 17:03, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 April 2006 10:34, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >> boo1 does the same - timeout loop. My small research seemingly suggests > >> that doing A20 via the BIOS is not very reliable and may not work on all > >> machines. > > > > Can you test a patch for pxeboot? It looks to be the one other place that > > goes near the A20 line. > > > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/pxe_a20.patch > > Done. Returning to the subject, loader's version of A20-enabling routine > suffers from the very same problem (libi386/gatea20.c), but luckily we > don't use this routing in the loader at all. I suspect that it relies on > A20 being enabled by previous boot stages. Did you test it for the non-legacy case as well? :-P I already took care of the loader's A20 hack. :) -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org