On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Evans writes:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary umphf
to actually do a
On 28-Feb-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
Or you can use PXE at your provisioning center and have the
BIOS setup to boot from the hard disk first, which will fail
for the initial boot and fall back to PXE. Then once the box
is installed you ship it to its destination.
This
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary umphf
to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the
overhead of 5.0-R. The lack of cmpxchg8 makes the locking horribly
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Evans writes:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary umphf
to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the
overhead of 5.0-R. The
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Evans writes:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary umphf
to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the
Hi,
At 21:06 28/2/03, M. Warner Losh wrote:
[...] We have some a few embedded systems coming back
from the field soon and I plan on trying some tests on them (they are
amd 386, so might not be good for you). [etc]
IIRC AMD had a mask deal with Intel for the 386, so should be OK.
--
Bob Bishop
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
My main concern would be if the chips have the necessary umphf
to actually do a real-world job once they're done running all the
overhead of 5.0-R. The lack of cmpxchg8 makes the locking horribly
expensive.
Actually, the lack of cmpxchg8 only
Bob Bishop wrote:
At 21:06 28/2/03, M. Warner Losh wrote:
[...] We have some a few embedded systems coming back
from the field soon and I plan on trying some tests on them (they are
amd 386, so might not be good for you). [etc]
IIRC AMD had a mask deal with Intel for the 386, so should be
];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ?
Bob Bishop wrote:
At 21:06 28/2/03, M. Warner Losh wrote:
[...] We have some a few embedded systems coming back
from the field soon and I plan on trying some tests on them
On 28-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 3:55 PM -0800 2/27/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
... JMB wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just
accidentally broken for almost a month and a half without
anyone
On 28-Feb-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
David Schultz wrote:
Thus spake Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
John Baldwin wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People who build embedded
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
However when that has been brought up before there were a lot of
theoretical objections.
Well, unless somebody actually manages to put a -current on an i386
and run the tests I
John Baldwin wrote:
Or you can use PXE at your provisioning center and have the
BIOS setup to boot from the hard disk first, which will fail
for the initial boot and fall back to PXE. Then once the box
is installed you ship it to its destination.
This is a possibility; however, there are a
On Fri Feb 28, 2003 at 04:42:14PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
However when that has been brought up before there were a lot of
theoretical objections.
Well, unless
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
:
: I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
: However when that has been brought up before there were a lot of
: theoretical
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], M. Warner Losh writes:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
:
: I personally think that we should not support the 80386 in 5.x.
: However when that has been brought
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], M. Warner Losh writes:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
: :
: : I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], M. Warner Losh writes:
Also, 386-core based chips are still in production (or have been in
the last year). It has only been very recently that the embedded
chips have transitioned to 486. Calling them, as others have, 10
years obsolete is a bit of an
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:06:13 -0700 (MST), M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Also, 386-core based chips are still in production (or have been in
the last year). It has only been very recently that the embedded
chips have transitioned to 486. Calling them, as others have, 10
years
* De: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
[ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
Yup. 386dx - 33Mhz. Results below:
Loaded kern.flp, mfsroot.flp, prompted for boot, then core dumped
as follows:
Was this normal release? I thought I
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:27:06AM -0600, Juli Mallett wrote:
Was this normal release? I thought I recalled a convo resulting in
the decision that 386 would require special release bits?
--
Juli Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] - AIM: BSDFlata -- IRC: juli on EFnetThe 386 CPU is
already gone from
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
[ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
Yup. 386dx - 33Mhz. Results below:
Loaded kern.flp, mfsroot.flp, prompted for boot, then core dumped
as
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Geoffrey writes:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
[ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
Yup. 386dx - 33Mhz. Results below:
Loaded kern.flp, mfsroot.flp,
Just out of curiosity, is your agenda to convince everyone to nix
386 support altogether or to fix 386 support? I'm not against
either, although I consider the latter goal to be a bit silly.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Schultz writes:
Just out of curiosity, is your agenda to convince everyone to nix
386 support altogether or to fix 386 support? I'm not against
either, although I consider the latter goal to be a bit silly.
My agenda is to find some data either in support of
I believe i386 compatible code was disabled in the kernel because it was
hindering the performance of more advanced Intel based architectures.
Supposedly you can build it back in but that would either require
building a release
yourself or finding someone who already built the i386 version.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:35:13AM -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
[ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
Yup. 386dx - 33Mhz. Results below:
Loaded kern.flp,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 01:27:55PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:35:13AM -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-02-27 ]
[ Subjecte: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? ]
At 1:27 PM +0200 2/27/03, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
: RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC,v
: Working file: GENERIC
: description:
:
: revision 1.296
: date: 2001/01/14 10:11:10; author: jhb; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2
:
: Remove I386_CPU from GENERIC. Support
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 1:27 PM +0200 2/27/03, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
: RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC,v
: Working file: GENERIC
: description:
:
: revision 1.296
: date: 2001/01/14 10:11:10; author: jhb; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2
:
:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I'm thinking maybe the 5.x release CD's should include:
GENERIC
GENERIC +SMP
GENERIC +VMWARE-friendly settings
GENERIC for i386
GENERIC OLDCARD
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
|
On 27-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 1:27 PM +0200 2/27/03, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
: RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC,v
: Working file: GENERIC
: description:
:
: revision 1.296
: date: 2001/01/14 10:11:10; author: jhb; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2
At 4:04 PM -0500 2/27/03, John Baldwin wrote:
On 27-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I'm thinking maybe the 5.x release CD's should include:
GENERIC
GENERIC +SMP
I plan to make SMP kernels work on a UP machine like they do on all
of our other platforms thus obsoleting the need for
John Baldwin wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People who build embedded devices that need to be supported in
the field, and want to worry about their software, and not the
platform it runs
On 27-Feb-2003 Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People wouldn't have noticed if phk@ hadn't asked for a volunteer
either. I386_CPU kernel compiles have been broken in the
On 27-Feb-2003 Terry Lambert wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People who build embedded devices that need to be supported in
the field, and want to worry about their
Thus spake Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
John Baldwin wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People who build embedded devices that need to be supported in
the field, and want to worry
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:29:53PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People wouldn't have noticed if phk@ hadn't asked for a volunteer
either. I386_CPU kernel
David Schultz wrote:
Thus spake Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
John Baldwin wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People who build embedded devices that need to be supported in
the
drosih GENERIC +VMWARE-friendly settings
It'll be unneeded for further VMware releases. At least, very recent
5-current runs quite fine on my VMware 4 beta.
-- -
Makoto `MAR' Matsushita
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 4:04 PM -0500 2/27/03, John Baldwin wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just accidentally
broken for almost a month and a half without anyone noticing.
People wouldn't have noticed if phk@ hadn't asked for a volunteer
At 3:55 PM -0800 2/27/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
... JMB wrote:
I doubt the usefulness of this. i386 kernels were just
accidentally broken for almost a month and a half without
anyone noticing.
Well, doesn't that suggest that it would
At 9:38 PM -0500 2003/02/27, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
It's never good to add to your release cycle something you don't
build/validate during development. Releases are painful enough
that you don't want to turn them into testbeds. If it's not
worth testing during development, it's not worth
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:38:18PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Okay, that also makes good sense. But if that is true, then maybe
we should officially tell our users that they *must* stay with the
4.x-series if they are running 386 hardware.
Something like that, yes. I think the
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
It points out that no one uses I386 kernels. Is it more valuable
to have GENERIC_I386 or KDE on disc 1? If it came down to that I
would pick KDE.
This is getting silly. As much respect as I have for you, KDE is
not and shouldn't be part of
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:09:56 -0500 (EST), Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I was evidently under the mistaken impression this was about nuts
and bolts. If we are to focus on window dressing, we are definitely
hozed.
We focus on what's actually useful to the plurality of users. Support
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:14:46PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:09:56 -0500 (EST), Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I was evidently under the mistaken impression this was about nuts
and bolts. If we are to focus on window dressing, we are definitely
hozed.
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I'm thinking maybe the 5.x release CD's should include:
: GENERIC
: GENERIC +SMP
: GENERIC +VMWARE-friendly settings
: GENERIC for i386
:
: Would that add too much extra work for a 5.x
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew N. Dodd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
: I'm thinking maybe the 5.x release CD's should include:
: GENERIC
: GENERIC +SMP
: GENERIC +VMWARE-friendly settings
: GENERIC for i386
:
49 matches
Mail list logo
