Warren Block writes:
> Please, whoever has one of these systems, find a contact address for
> Lenovo. It should be on every one of these messages, and we should be
> encouraging every affected user to contact Lenovo support. I can post
> it in the forums, also.
gethuman.com lists customerfeedb.
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Adrian Chadd wrote:
But the problem here is that we're using GPT but /not/ UEFI, right?
That's why that's all a mess?
If you have a GPT layout, but it boots on a BIOS machine, the missing
active flag on a standards-correct PMBR partition usually does not keep
it from boo
Hi,
But the problem here is that we're using GPT but /not/ UEFI, right?
That's why that's all a mess?
-adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "free
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Adrian Chadd wrote:
I'm really confused. Why is the active flag not set again?
I thought that was the whole point of the active flag in the partition table.
At one point, smart people explained this to me. My fault if I do not
remember it correctly (not that it will sto
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Kevin Oberman wrote:
This is possibly orthogonal and possibly not of use on X2nn systems, but I boot
my T520 with a GPT formatted disk as the secondary drive by having the MBR
disk0 configured with booteasy
and telling it to boot disk1. While this is of no use on single sp
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Allan Jude wrote:
> On 2015-07-13 15:45, Warren Block wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Allan Jude wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-07-13 14:08, Warren Block wrote:
>>>
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2015-07-13 11:19, Warren Block wrote:
>
On 2015-07-13 15:45, Warren Block wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2015-07-13 14:08, Warren Block wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2015-07-13 11:19, Warren Block wrote:
Needing the active flag set is indeed a different problem. I am
working
on a patch for bs
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2015-07-13 14:08, Warren Block wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2015-07-13 11:19, Warren Block wrote:
Needing the active flag set is indeed a different problem. I am working
on a patch for bsdinstall that will allow the user to reque
On 2015-07-13 14:08, Warren Block wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2015-07-13 11:19, Warren Block wrote:
Needing the active flag set is indeed a different problem. I am working
on a patch for bsdinstall that will allow the user to request the
active
bit be set as well.
For G
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2015-07-13 11:19, Warren Block wrote:
Needing the active flag set is indeed a different problem. I am working
on a patch for bsdinstall that will allow the user to request the active
bit be set as well.
For GPT, that should be the default, because it
On 2015-07-13 13:19, Adrian Chadd wrote:
I'm really confused. Why is the active flag not set again?
I thought that was the whole point of the active flag in the partition table.
-a
Not that it counts much, but windows does not set the active flag in its
pMBR.
I was under the impression t
I'm really confused. Why is the active flag not set again?
I thought that was the whole point of the active flag in the partition table.
-a
On 13 July 2015 at 08:54, Allan Jude wrote:
> On 2015-07-13 11:19, Warren Block wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Needing the active flag set is indeed a different prob
On 2015-07-13 11:19, Warren Block wrote:
Needing the active flag set is indeed a different problem. I am working
on a patch for bsdinstall that will allow the user to request the active
bit be set as well.
For GPT, that should be the default, because it matches the standard.
I would like to s
Needing the active flag set is indeed a different problem. I am working
on a patch for bsdinstall that will allow the user to request the active
bit be set as well.
For GPT, that should be the default, because it matches the standard.
I would like to see an effort to get Lenovo to fix their br
On 2015-07-13 03:58, Hans Ottevanger wrote:
> On 07/12/15 20:07, Allan Jude wrote:
>> On 2015-07-12 11:10, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>> On 12.07.2015 09:02, Allan Jude wrote:
I forgot to include the link to the patch as well:
http://www.allanjude.com/bsd/lenovofix_gpart.patch
>>
Confirmed. Boots OK as expected for my ThinkPad T420 (has buggy BIOS).
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:54:09 -0400
Allan Jude wrote:
> On 2015-07-12 09:24, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> >
> > As far as I could confirm currently,
> >
> >*My ThinkPad didn't boot from decompressed .xz image written in
> > m
On 07/12/15 20:07, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2015-07-12 11:10, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
On 12.07.2015 09:02, Allan Jude wrote:
I forgot to include the link to the patch as well:
http://www.allanjude.com/bsd/lenovofix_gpart.patch
I will most likely make this patch optional, behind a flag to the 'gp
On 2015-07-12 11:10, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 12.07.2015 09:02, Allan Jude wrote:
>> I forgot to include the link to the patch as well:
>>
>> http://www.allanjude.com/bsd/lenovofix_gpart.patch
>>
>> I will most likely make this patch optional, behind a flag to the 'gpart
>> create -s gpt' comm
Hi!
> What model machine is this?
It's a X220:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU M 520
2500 MHz
4096 MB RAM
Serial: R9-GGPAX YY/MM
Type: 42918F6
dmidecode says:
Vendor: LENOVO
Version: 8DET69WW (1.39 )
with more details available at
http://people.freebsd.org/~pi/udog/
> Can you
On 2015-07-12 13:52, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> This was a mistake in my image, can you please try one of the new ones?
>>
>> compressed (193 MiB):
>> http://www.allanjude.com/bsd/lenovofix_20150712-r285132.img.xz
>
> I did this:
>
> xzcat lenovofix_20150712-r285132.img.xz | dd of=/dev/da0 bs
Hi!
> This was a mistake in my image, can you please try one of the new ones?
>
> compressed (193 MiB):
> http://www.allanjude.com/bsd/lenovofix_20150712-r285132.img.xz
I did this:
xzcat lenovofix_20150712-r285132.img.xz | dd of=/dev/da0 bs=1m
gpart show
=> 34 2097085 diskid/DISK-60A44C3
On 2015-07-12 04:44, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
Hi. I'd have to chime in. ;-)
There are at least 4 ways of workarounds, including yours (1).
1: Offset GPT entry in PMBR. (First posted by Chris Torek.)
2: Mimic ESP [use 0xEF instead of 0xEE] (Need patch for loader.)
3: Use UEFI loader. (Curren
On 2015-07-12 09:24, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
Hi.
As far as I could confirm currently,
*My ThinkPad didn't boot from decompressed .xz image written in
memstick.
*The partition tables (both PMBR and GPT) looks fine.
(As expected. Verified with `gpart show` and `fdisk -p -v da0`)
*O
On 12.07.2015 09:02, Allan Jude wrote:
> I forgot to include the link to the patch as well:
>
> http://www.allanjude.com/bsd/lenovofix_gpart.patch
>
> I will most likely make this patch optional, behind a flag to the 'gpart
> create -s gpt' command, to avoid potentially breaking existing working
Hi.
As far as I could confirm currently,
*My ThinkPad didn't boot from decompressed .xz image written in
memstick.
*The partition tables (both PMBR and GPT) looks fine.
(As expected. Verified with `gpart show` and `fdisk -p -v da0`)
*Overwriting bootcode (gptzfsboot) in GPT partitio
Hi!
> I have spent my weekend researching why my Lenovo X220s refuse to boot
> from GPT partitioned disks.
>
> Based on this mailing list post:
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-i386/2013-March/010437.html
>
> I have written a patch for gpart to change the way the PMBR is created.
>
Hi. I'd have to chime in. ;-)
There are at least 4 ways of workarounds, including yours (1).
1: Offset GPT entry in PMBR. (First posted by Chris Torek.)
2: Mimic ESP [use 0xEF instead of 0xEE] (Need patch for loader.)
3: Use UEFI loader. (Currently clean root-on-ZFS is NOT supported)
4: U
On 2015-07-12 01:49, Allan Jude wrote:
> I have spent my weekend researching why my Lenovo X220s refuse to boot
> from GPT partitioned disks.
>
> Based on this mailing list post:
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-i386/2013-March/010437.html
>
> I have written a patch for gpart to chan
28 matches
Mail list logo
