Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:25:23 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Mayo <mark@quickweb.com> To: David Greenman <dg@Root.COM> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, erich@uruk.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Memory probe(s) in FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.94.961117182023.8223A-100000@vinyl.quickweb.com> In-Reply-To: <199611172225.OAA18864@root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, David Greenman wrote: > >Perhaps support > >for all old boot blocks should be dropped. It is reasonable to require > >that the (interface) version number of the bootblocks is >= that of the > >kernel to reduce the number of cases. > > I strongly disagree with this, BTW. > > -DG Just to agree with DG here, my computer has less base mem than the kernel expects, and it isn't an old computer -> it's a dual PPro from digital. Nevertheless, it's BIOS basemem is only 635K, which is < RTC basemem of 640K. If BSD didn't listen to the BIOS value from the bootloader, chances are my system would be toast with fbsd... Not to mention the older 386 and 486 machines I run -- who knows what old bootloader stuff these use! So, like David, I'd definately by happy to see this stuff stay the way it is. I missed part of the discussion, so feel free to quite me if I'm off on the wrong path here :-) -mark > > David Greenman > Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project > --------------------------------------------------- | Mark Mayo mark@quickweb.com | | RingZero Comp. vinyl.quickweb.com/mark | --------------------------------------------------- "To iterate is human, to recurse divine." - L. Peter Deutsch
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.94.961117182023.8223A-100000>