Re: Found a problem with new source code
On 11-Nov-2003 Jason wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >>On 11-Nov-2003 Jason wrote: >> >> >>>I just wanted to let someone know that my buildworld fails at >>>/usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c at line 362. I get an undefined >>>error for RB_BOOTINFO, by adding #define RB_BOOTINFO 0x1f it worked. >>>Also it failed at sendmail.fc or something, I don't use send mail so I >>>just did not build it. It looks like someone already reported the >>>device apic problem. I just tryed option smp and device apic on my >>>single proc athlon, panic on boot unless I chose no apic or is it no >>>acpi(?) at boot. >>> >>> >> >>No ACPI is what you can choose at boot. Can you post the panic message? >> >> >> >>>By the way, why adding the smp options do any good for my machine? I >>>mostly care about speed, but it seems it might just make the os unstable >>>for me. >>> >>> >> >>You can always compile a custom kernel without SMP if you wish. device >>apic can be helpful because PCI devices do not have to share interrupts. >>Enabling SMP in GENERIC means that SMP machines now work out of the box. >>It also means that a sysadmin can use one kernel across both UP and SMP >>machines in a hetergeneous environment which can ease system >>administration in some cases. >> >> >> > I like the idea of not sharing irqs. Can I have apic without smp on? Yes. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Found a problem with new source code
John Baldwin wrote: On 11-Nov-2003 Jason wrote: I just wanted to let someone know that my buildworld fails at /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c at line 362. I get an undefined error for RB_BOOTINFO, by adding #define RB_BOOTINFO 0x1f it worked. Also it failed at sendmail.fc or something, I don't use send mail so I just did not build it. It looks like someone already reported the device apic problem. I just tryed option smp and device apic on my single proc athlon, panic on boot unless I chose no apic or is it no acpi(?) at boot. No ACPI is what you can choose at boot. Can you post the panic message? Sorry, I don't get to see the message, the screen seems to tear(?), every other line is moved to the side making it unreadable. Then It instantly reboots. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Found a problem with new source code
John Baldwin wrote: On 11-Nov-2003 Jason wrote: I just wanted to let someone know that my buildworld fails at /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c at line 362. I get an undefined error for RB_BOOTINFO, by adding #define RB_BOOTINFO 0x1f it worked. Also it failed at sendmail.fc or something, I don't use send mail so I just did not build it. It looks like someone already reported the device apic problem. I just tryed option smp and device apic on my single proc athlon, panic on boot unless I chose no apic or is it no acpi(?) at boot. No ACPI is what you can choose at boot. Can you post the panic message? By the way, why adding the smp options do any good for my machine? I mostly care about speed, but it seems it might just make the os unstable for me. You can always compile a custom kernel without SMP if you wish. device apic can be helpful because PCI devices do not have to share interrupts. Enabling SMP in GENERIC means that SMP machines now work out of the box. It also means that a sysadmin can use one kernel across both UP and SMP machines in a hetergeneous environment which can ease system administration in some cases. I like the idea of not sharing irqs. Can I have apic without smp on? Thanks, Jason ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Found a problem with new source code
On 11-Nov-2003 Jason wrote: > I just wanted to let someone know that my buildworld fails at > /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c at line 362. I get an undefined > error for RB_BOOTINFO, by adding #define RB_BOOTINFO 0x1f it worked. > Also it failed at sendmail.fc or something, I don't use send mail so I > just did not build it. It looks like someone already reported the > device apic problem. I just tryed option smp and device apic on my > single proc athlon, panic on boot unless I chose no apic or is it no > acpi(?) at boot. No ACPI is what you can choose at boot. Can you post the panic message? > By the way, why adding the smp options do any good for my machine? I > mostly care about speed, but it seems it might just make the os unstable > for me. You can always compile a custom kernel without SMP if you wish. device apic can be helpful because PCI devices do not have to share interrupts. Enabling SMP in GENERIC means that SMP machines now work out of the box. It also means that a sysadmin can use one kernel across both UP and SMP machines in a hetergeneous environment which can ease system administration in some cases. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Found a problem with new source code
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Jason wrote: > I just wanted to let someone know that my buildworld fails at > /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c at line 362. I get an undefined > error for RB_BOOTINFO, by adding #define RB_BOOTINFO 0x1f it worked. Sorry, I broke it last night. it is now fixed. > Also it failed at sendmail.fc or something, I don't use send mail so I > just did not build it. It looks like someone already reported the > device apic problem. I just tryed option smp and device apic on my > single proc athlon, panic on boot unless I chose no apic or is it no > acpi(?) at boot. > > By the way, why adding the smp options do any good for my machine? I > mostly care about speed, but it seems it might just make the os unstable > for me. No; it is only good for multi-CPU machines. Bruce ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Found a problem with new source code
I just wanted to let someone know that my buildworld fails at /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c at line 362. I get an undefined error for RB_BOOTINFO, by adding #define RB_BOOTINFO 0x1f it worked. Also it failed at sendmail.fc or something, I don't use send mail so I just did not build it. It looks like someone already reported the device apic problem. I just tryed option smp and device apic on my single proc athlon, panic on boot unless I chose no apic or is it no acpi(?) at boot. By the way, why adding the smp options do any good for my machine? I mostly care about speed, but it seems it might just make the os unstable for me. Thanks, Jason ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
