From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 14 13:39:37 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ambrisko.com (adsl-64-174-51-42.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.174.51.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC53937B401; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from ambrisko@localhost) by ambrisko.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f8EKdNT75021; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:39:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ambrisko) From: Doug Ambrisko Message-Id: <200109142039.f8EKdNT75021@ambrisko.com> Subject: Re: Does boot1 still have a > 1023 cyl limit? In-Reply-To: <200109141833.f8EIXRf42001@freefall.freebsd.org> To: rnordier@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Cc: kstewart@urx.com, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG, roam@ringlet.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, mark@whistle.com, dhw@whistle.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL92 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG rnordier@FreeBSD.ORG writes: | Kent Stewart wrote: | | > Mike Smith wrote: | > > | > > > So.. if I read you right, booting correctly for > 1024 cylinders works | > > > if boot0 knows about it. Isn't boot0 the one in the MBR, not in the fbsd | > > > slice? Does this mean that boot1 and boot2 should work just fine if they | > > > are loaded by another kind of MBR loader (say, Grub), and they find out | > > > that they are placed beyond the 1023th cylinder? | > > | > > This should work, yes. | > | > I tried this with a boot1 from FreeBSD 4.4-rc and get a BTX error. I | > had to go back to the boot1 from 4.3 before I could boot. | | That could be serious. Can you post a brief description of your | hardware, together with the BTX register dump if possible? boot1 was | changed to address some problems with certain hardware, so it is | important to know if other incompatibilities have been introduced. ... in 4.3: warp% nm boot1.o | grep flags 00000199 t flags warp% in -current a21p% !nm nm boot1.o | grep flags 000001ba t flags a21p% Is someone writing into boot1 "flags"? Then there is a problem since this has moved. We did some work to avoid this "linking type" problem for xread in boot2.c to prevent this type of error. Do we have to do it for "flags"? I see in libdisk: static void Cfg_Boot_Mgr(u_char *mbr, int edd) { if (mbr[0x1b0] == 0x66 && mbr[0x1b1] == 0xbb) { if (edd) mbr[0x1bb] |= 0x80; /* Packet mode on */ else mbr[0x1bb] &= 0x7f; /* Packet mode off */ } } The mbr code it is modifying is in boot0 or mbr since I see in boot0 that: a21p% nm boot0.o | grep flags 000001bb t flags a21p% but I'm not seeing how it gets over to boot1 for this test? read.7: testb $FL_PACKET,%cs:MEM_REL+flags-start # LBA support e Doug A. PS. dhw ... could you try to set packet mode on some machines there and test it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message