From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 11 08:50:23 2003 Return-Path: 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 7861037B401 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0426843F3F for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:50:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0023.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.23] helo=mindspring.com) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1940mt-0004F4-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:50:00 -0700 Message-ID: <3E96E3D5.C771F7D8@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:48:37 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Jeremy References: <200304101843.h3AIh4C65481@flip.jhs.private> <3E95EC17.7746B6D9@mindspring.com> <20030411072023.GA47320@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a42cf4e1d083019246f010feab42ab7e8d666fa475841a1c7a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: jhs@berklix.com cc: Michael Elbel Subject: Re: Anyone seen 4.8-RELEASE running on a real 386 (not 486 586 etc) ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:50:24 -0000 Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 03:11:35PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > >Julian Stacey wrote: > >> freebsd-hackers@, > >> Anyone seen 4.8-RELEASE running on a real 386 processor (not a 486, 586 etc) ? > > > >You must config your kernel with a CPU type of 386, so that it > >will not atttempt to use 486-specific instructions, and so it > >will emulate kernel write faulting, since the 386 does not do > >this correctly. > > The kernel must have had I386_CPU because otherwise it would it would > panic via panicifcpuunsupported() from cpu_startup(). Ah, you're right. I was looking for horses, when I should have been looking for zebras. 8-). -- Terry