*BSD News Article 14063


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu!ns1.nodak.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!psgrain!m2xenix!agora!rgrimes
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: Some errors message questions
Message-ID: <C50IrJ.LK3@agora.rain.com>
From: rgrimes@agora.rain.com (Rodney Grimes)
Date: 5 Apr 93 13:28:30 GMT
References: <C4wAFC.EIw@newsserver.technet.sg> <C4znHv.rw@newsserver.technet.sg>
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Article-I.D.: agora.C50IrJ.LK3
Lines: 70

milton@solomon.technet.sg (Milton Choo) writes:

>In article <C4wAFC.EIw@newsserver.technet.sg> milton@solomon.technet.sg (Milton Choo) writes:
>>
>>
>>I have just installed the new patches from base 0.1
>>distribution and now i have some errors not seen before
>>patch installed  uptil 109.
>>
>>
>>wd0: <PB3-AT-OCh> |: < wdgetctlr failed, assuming ok > 0x1f0 Irq14 on isa
>>

>Someone wrote to me that this is okay, it is because
>386bsd is looking for a 2nd drive? 

They were correct, this simply means that it did not find the second drive,
it is a bug still, and no there is not a patch to fixit, and do not remove
the patch that makes this happen, it is really just a message telling you
that it did not find a valid 2nd disk.

>So i presume the following is true also because of the 2nd drive.

>>
>>checking for core dump
>>can't find device 0/1

You are incorect, this means it could not find the swap partition that
a dump would have gone in.  You probably have a bad disklabel without
any swap space.  There are a couple of things that could cause this,
take a look at the output from this:

	disklabel -r /dev/rwd0a


>So, is there a file descibing all the necessary patches
>and unnecessary patches? The patch kit use to have
>a file that did just that but i couldn't find it anymore,
>and it is too slow to go through 105 patches one by one,
>since it is now broken up into different directory.

No there is no file describbing the necesary and unnecessary patches,
as we (the people real close to the patchkit) feel that they should ALL
be installed except the 10000 and 90000 series, those are up to the
user.

Everybody should install ALL of the patches, a policy change has been
made and very rarely should a HACK get into the patchkit.

>So that i can deinstall the offending patch, i don't
>like to see error message, it add stress to my feeble mind:-)

As I mentioned above, you should not deinstall this patch, it will
probably cause you more problems than living with a warning message.

>On a side note, what happened to 105-108? are they omitted?

Yes, they where omitted in a since.  Do to a reorganization of the
patchset84-110 that was released for BETA testing before the 0.2.2
patchkit these numbers were unused.  They have been reused for new
patches in the next patchkit.

I hope that answered your questions.

Rod
-- 
Rod Grimes						rgrimes@agora.rain.com
Accurate Automation Company          All opinions belong to me and my company!
Get your free copy of  386bsd  from  agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD  via  ftp!
An out of work contractor... You need unix work done.... Send me your project!