Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:14:26 -0800 (PST) From: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> To: nate@yogotech.com Cc: mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer Thinkpads Message-ID: <200011291814.eATIEQ833818@pau-amma.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <14885.16754.561866.45663@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> >Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:48:34 -0700 (MST) >> >Didn't Robert shrink it back to 1 sector after 4.1 was released? It >> >would be interesting to know if the 'smaller' bootblock worked as well. >> No; jhb found that there was a bug in the boot0 code & fixed it. My >> archived mail shows that most of the work occurred on 04 August. >Hmm, the log message I'm reading says: > date: 2000/10/02 17:30:22; author: rnordier; state: Exp; lines: +77 -151 > Go back to occupying just a single sector, reverting r1.17 - r1.20. >[SNIP Right; I expressed myself poorly: what I meant by the above is that the thing that fixed the boot-hang (back in August) was not a change in the size of boot0, but jhb locating & fixing a bug. (I meant no slight to either jhb or rnordier; I hope that's clear.) >This is the last commit made to the boot0 code for i386. Ahh, but this >code didn't make it back into FreeBSD 4.X, so 4.2 *might* still be >succeptible if this is a 2-sector boot0 bug. True, though other evidence (in this thread) indicates that at least part of the problem occurs even if a single sector is all that is used. Cheers, david -- David Wolfskill dhw@whistle.com UNIX System Administrator Desk: 650/577-7158 TIE: 8/499-7158 Cell: 650/759-0823 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011291814.eATIEQ833818>