From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Nov 17 15:29:54 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA21398 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:29:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA21370 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.7.6/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA19129; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:27:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611172327.PAA19129@root.com> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Erich Boleyn cc: Bruce Evans , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Memory probe(s) in FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:24:45 PST." From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:27:51 -0800 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Hmm... this is starting to get complicated. I don't really want to fuss >with the old-style BSD booting interface much because it needs a lot of >fixing and simply can't be straightforwardly extended to include all the >new things one might want to do. > >How about we leave the existing boot interface the way it is, and I'll >generate a patch to use the new Multiboot interface (which can happily >co-exist with the BSD methodology). Some really big advantages of >the Multiboot stuff include of course the extra memory information, but >also a real text command-line (i.e. no patches to the bootloader for >every new kernel option supported) and multiple modules passed at boot-time >to the kernel would then be supported. > >What do you think? This is fine with me; I just object to dropping support for older bootblocks. I don't object to dropping support for really-old (pre-2.0.5) bootblocks, however. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project