Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/i386/stand/bootxx
Emmanuel Dreyfus writes: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:43:36PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> > Primary bootstrap is now able to read a GPT inside RAIDframe. >> did you also update documentation? > > We do not have any documentation specific to primary bootstrap. > x86/boot(8) domuent the behavior with no detail about primary > and secondary bootstrap distinct roles. > > The change makes primary bootstrap behavior in line with secondary > bootstrap and with what is already documented in x86/boot(8). Hence > there is no documentation update, we could consider it as a bug fix, > since the previosu behavior did not match x86/boot(8) documentation. Thank you for explaining. That sounds fine then.
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/i386/stand/bootxx
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:43:36PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Primary bootstrap is now able to read a GPT inside RAIDframe. > did you also update documentation? We do not have any documentation specific to primary bootstrap. x86/boot(8) domuent the behavior with no detail about primary and secondary bootstrap distinct roles. The change makes primary bootstrap behavior in line with secondary bootstrap and with what is already documented in x86/boot(8). Hence there is no documentation update, we could consider it as a bug fix, since the previosu behavior did not match x86/boot(8) documentation. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/i386/stand/bootxx
"Emmanuel Dreyfus" writes: > Log Message: > Primary bootstrap is now able to read a GPT inside RAIDframe. did you also update documentation?
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/i386/stand/bootxx
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 06:33:50PM +1100, matthew green wrote: > "Christos Zoulas" writes: > > Module Name:src > > Committed By: christos > > Date: Sun Jan 3 20:59:47 UTC 2016 > > > > Modified Files: > > src/sys/arch/i386/stand/bootxx: pbr.S > > > > Log Message: > > change 60 to 70 which is the current release. Noticed by Rares Aioanei. > > i don't think so we should do this unless we change the protocol, > as jak mentioned. this can be intepreted by the BIOS and it might > do differnet stuff so unless there's actually a good reason for it > this change could break something that works (poorly.) AFAIR it is just the operating system name in the partition boot record and is purely a comment. The bios certainly should be looking at it, the bios doesn't look at the pbr only the mbr (and shouldn't look at much of that). OTOH, no point changing it. David -- David Laight: da...@l8s.co.uk
