From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Nov 10 11:52:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26EB537B401; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:52:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-232-220-15.client.attbi.com [12.232.220.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885B943E77; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:52:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gAAJq7DN003444; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:52:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id gAAJq7GC003443; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:52:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:52:07 -0800 From: David Schultz To: Mitsuru IWASAKI Cc: bde@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: machdep.c problem Message-ID: <20021110195207.GA3323@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Mitsuru IWASAKI , bde@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20021108234404.L22249-100000@server.arg.sj.co.uk> <20021110.050300.98560281.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> <20021110124354.GA2292@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20021111.012625.74757276.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021111.012625.74757276.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Thus spake Mitsuru IWASAKI : > > This approach is okay with me in the sense that it doesn't break > > anything that wasn't already broken, but as you say, I think we > > can do better. Below is a patch that merely extracts the basemem > > size from the bootinfo structure for the purposes of mapping the > > EBDA. I retained the int 12h fallback just to be safe, but I > > think the bootinfo structure is initialized with a valid basemem > > for all loaders since at least 1998. (Maybe the fallbacks in the > > kernel should be removed entirely to avoid redundancy, or moved > > from loader and boot2 to locore.s.) > > Yes, this idea was in my first patch actually, and this was not > good solution as Bruce explained. Please see the archive at: > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=94412+0+archive/2002/freebsd-current/20021006.freebsd-current It sounds like the basic objection is, ``We came up with this feature in 1995 and never used it, so we shouldn't start using it now.'' Fine, but I still maintain that determining the memory size in real mode like everyone else is the right thing to do. Are there any objections to the following? - Remove the redundant and unused memory detection code from boot2, loader, and libi386. - Mark the bootinfo fields bi_basemem and bi_extmem as deprecated. - Determine basemem in locore.s using 15h:e820h, with a fallback to int 12h. - Remove the basemem calculation from machdep.c. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message