Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:50:28 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 5.2-RELEASE TODO Message-ID: <20031202104513.C84301@light.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <20031201171044.N54268@pooker.samsco.home> References: <200312011501.hB1F1NJe048491@fledge.watson.org> <20031201171044.N54268@pooker.samsco.home>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Scott Long wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > On Monday, 1 December 2003 at 10:01:23 -0500, Robert Watson wrote: ... > > > > 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. Just to be complete, there are already a whole bunch of machines that will not boot 5.x, irregardless of the ACPI issues. I've never been able to boot 5.x with ACPI on or off, on any of the 5 Dell PowerEdge 6350 servers I have here, even though they run 4.9 perfectly. I have a PR open on it. So even without the ACPI issues on some hardware, there are still other reasons why 5.x is going to fail to boot. Tomhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031202104513.C84301>