From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 1 16:09:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F3B16A4CE for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:09:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 467AE43F3F for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:09:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 42028 invoked by uid 1002); 2 Dec 2003 00:08:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.4.1.5?) (64.58.1.252) by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 2 Dec 2003 00:08:46 -0000 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:12:23 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Long X-X-Sender: scottl@pooker.samsco.home To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey In-Reply-To: <20031201235600.GP12914@wantadilla.lemis.com> Message-ID: <20031201171044.N54268@pooker.samsco.home> References: <200312011501.hB1F1NJe048491@fledge.watson.org> <20031201235600.GP12914@wantadilla.lemis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: re@FreeBSD.org cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 5.2-RELEASE TODO X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:09:13 -0000 On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Monday, 1 December 2003 at 10:01:23 -0500, Robert Watson wrote: > > This is an automated bi-weekly mailing of the FreeBSD 5.2 open issues list. > > > > Show stopper defects for 5.2-RELEASE > > > > +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > | Issue | Status |Responsible | Description | > > |-----------+-----------+------------+-----------------------------------| > > | | | |The new i386 interrupt code | > > |ACPI kernel| | |requires that ACPI be compiled into| > > |module |In progress|John Baldwin|the kernel if it to be used. Work | > > | | | |is underway to restore the ability | > > | | | |to load it as a module. | > > |-----------+-----------+------------+-----------------------------------| > > I'm currently investigating ACPI problems on a dual processor Intel > motherboard (re@ knows about this). It looks as if the new code is > much fussier than the old code about the quality of the motherboard > BIOS: this machine runs fine on 5.1, but won't finish booting on > 5.2-BETA. Yes, this is probably an ACPI bug, but users aren't going > to see it that way: if we release a 5.2 which won't boot on a lot of > machines, people are going to blame 5.2, not the machine. I think we > should ensure that there's at least a fallback for machines with > broken ACPI. This argument is exactly why I added the 'disable acpi' option in the boot loader menu. Of course, we STILL need to get good debugging information from you as to why you get a Trap 9 when ACPI is disabled. This is the more important issue. Scott