On 3/1/19 5:03 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> On 2/28/19 10:32 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> ( ... trimmed ... )
>
>>> The BIOS does have a enable/disable button for virtualization.
>>> During the great drm-legacy-kmod event of the last month, enabling
>>> virtualization locks up a i386 FreeBSD kernel
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 14:13, Ian Lepore wrote:
>
> I have been of the opinion that armv[67] has met all the bullet points
> to be a tier-1 arch for several years, but nobody seemed interested in
> declaring it so. Now it'll never happen, because there seems to be
> growing momentum to throw
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:46 PM John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On 2/28/19 11:14 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > > On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer
> > wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that
> On 2/28/19 11:14 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
> >> wrote:
> >>> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now
> >>> the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures
> On 2/28/19 10:32 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
( ... trimmed ... )
> > The BIOS does have a enable/disable button for virtualization.
> > During the great drm-legacy-kmod event of the last month, enabling
> > virtualization locks up a i386 FreeBSD kernel very quickly.
> > Perhaps, virtualization works
On 2/28/19 11:24 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> On February 28, 2019 11:21:24 AM PST, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:14:51AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote:
>>> On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer
>> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
wrote:
On February 28, 2019 11:21:24 AM PST, Steve Kargl
wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:14:51AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote:
>> On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer
>wrote:
>> >On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
>> > wrote:
>> >> This is interesting as well. Does this mean
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 11:06 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
> > wrote:
> > > This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now
> > > the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:46 PM John Baldwin wrote:
> On 2/28/19 11:14 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
> >> wrote:
> >>> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now
>
On 2/28/19 11:14 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
>> wrote:
>>> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now
>>> the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures are after
>>>
On 2/28/19 10:32 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:09:38AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
>> You can do all your tests directly on amd64 by just adding
>> "-m32" to compile i386 binaries against the libraries in /usr/lib32
>> and you will generate the same i386 binaries as if you
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:14:51AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote:
> On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
> > wrote:
> >> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now
> >> the only tier 1 platform and all other
On February 28, 2019 11:06:46 AM PST, Conrad Meyer wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
> wrote:
>> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now
>> the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures are after
>> thoughts?
>
>This has been the de facto truth for
On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 11:06 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
> wrote:
> > This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now
> > the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures are after
> > thoughts?
>
> This has been the de facto truth
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl
wrote:
> This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now
> the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures are after
> thoughts?
This has been the de facto truth for years. i386 is mostly only
supported by virtue of sharing code
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:09:38AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 2/23/19 8:39 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 08:32:23AM -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:44 AM Steve Kargl
> >> wrote:
> >>> Ideas?
> >>> ...
> >>> +CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU
On 2/23/19 8:39 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 08:32:23AM -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:44 AM Steve Kargl
>> wrote:
>>> Ideas?
>>> ...
>>> +CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz (1995.04-MHz
>>> 686-class CPU)
>>>
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 10:27:26AM +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 17:28:51 -0800 Steve Kargl
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03:58PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:57 AM Steve Kargl
> >> wrote:
> >>> Supposely, the laptop only has 4 GB of
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 10:58 AM Steve Kargl <
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 10:06:53AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I missed it, but Steve, did you run the patched in a different way
> > tests that I suggested? Replacing the limits with
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 10:06:53AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 2:27 AM Tijl Coosemans wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 17:28:51 -0800 Steve Kargl
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03:58PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:57 AM Steve
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 10:06:53AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> >
>
> Maybe I missed it, but Steve, did you run the patched in a different way
> tests that I suggested? Replacing the limits with 0x for testing
> purposes to ensure that drm isn't saying it can cope with larger addresses?
>
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 2:27 AM Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 17:28:51 -0800 Steve Kargl
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03:58PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:57 AM Steve Kargl
> >> wrote:
> >>> Supposely, the laptop only has 4 GB of memory.
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 17:28:51 -0800 Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03:58PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:57 AM Steve Kargl
>> wrote:
>>> Supposely, the laptop only has 4 GB of memory. Not sure how
>>> it finds memory above 4 GB.
>>
>> Some older
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:03:58PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:57 AM Steve Kargl <
> s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > Supposely, the laptop only has 4 GB of memory. Not sure how
> > it finds memory above 4 GB.
> >
>
> Some older chipsets had a 'hole' in
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:57 AM Steve Kargl <
> s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > Supposely, the laptop only has 4 GB of memory. Not sure how
> > it finds memory above 4 GB.
> >
>
> Some older chipsets had a 'hole' in memory that they mapped the PCI bus
> into and then remapped
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 07:26:44PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:04:10PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:57 AM Steve Kargl <
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> Supposely, the laptop only has 4 GB of memory. Not sure how
> it finds memory above 4 GB.
>
Some older chipsets had a 'hole' in memory that they mapped the PCI bus
into and then remapped RAM in that range
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 01:22:28PM +0300, Vladimir Kondratyev wrote:
> On 2019-02-22 09:04, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> > Ideas?
>
> Place hw.above4g_allow=0 into /boot/loader.conf?
>
Tried that. sysctl -a does not report hw.above4g_allowed,
so have no idea if it set.
--
Steve
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:44 AM Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Ideas?
> ...
> +CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz (1995.04-MHz 686-class
> CPU)
>Origin="GenuineIntel" Id=0x6fd Family=0x6 Model=0xf Stepping=13
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 07:26:44PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:04:10PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 07:39:25PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > > r343567 merges
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 08:32:23AM -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:44 AM Steve Kargl
> wrote:
> > Ideas?
> > ...
> > +CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz (1995.04-MHz
> > 686-class CPU)
> >Origin="GenuineIntel" Id=0x6fd Family=0x6 Model=0xf
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 07:26:44PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:04:10PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 07:39:25PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > r343567 merges the PAE vs
On 2019-02-22 09:04, Steve Kargl wrote:
Ideas?
Place hw.above4g_allow=0 into /boot/loader.conf?
--
WBR
Vladimir Kondratyev
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 07:26:44PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:04:10PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 07:39:25PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > r343567 merges the PAE vs non-PAE pmap headers for i386
> > > freebsd. After bisection and dealing
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:04:10PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 07:39:25PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > r343567 merges the PAE vs non-PAE pmap headers for i386
> > freebsd. After bisection and dealing with the drm-legacy-kmod
> > fallout, I bisected /usr/src to r343567.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 07:39:25PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> r343567 merges the PAE vs non-PAE pmap headers for i386
> freebsd. After bisection and dealing with the drm-legacy-kmod
> fallout, I bisected /usr/src to r343567. Building world and
> a GENERIC kernel and the minimum set of ports to
r343567 merges the PAE vs non-PAE pmap headers for i386
freebsd. After bisection and dealing with the drm-legacy-kmod
fallout, I bisected /usr/src to r343567. Building world and
a GENERIC kernel and the minimum set of ports to start Xorg
on my Dell Latitude D530 laptop, results in a black screen
37 matches
Mail list logo
