Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!destroyer!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!cpsc.ucalgary.ca!xenlink!fsa.ca!news
From: hpeyerl@fsa.ca (Herb Peyerl)
Subject: Re: Will this work (two IDE drives, DOS and *BSD)?
Message-ID: <1993Aug26.163116.8468@fsa.ca>
Sender: news@fsa.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: newt.fsa.ca
Organization: Little Lizard City
References: <1993Aug23.164125.1497@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <DERAADT.93Aug25145630@newt.fsa.ca> <1993Aug26.151022.23078@gmd.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 16:31:16 GMT
Lines: 21
In article <1993Aug26.151022.23078@gmd.de> veit@mururoa.gmd.de (Holger Veit) writes:
>I read far enough, I just excluded it from the followup. As you already pointed
>out, the fix contributes some more code to the boot loader, which is bad since it
>is already close to the upper limit. Further code will be necessary for adaption
>to allow booting Mach from *BSD (parameter passing, etc.). Nearly every
>additional byte in the loader is too much.
I believe the fix Theo is talking about is mine which just uses the RTC
to deal with the keystroke timeout.. Yes it does add additional code but
in my opinion; it is the right way to do it...
I know the bootblocks are tight... This is why I'd like to see an
alternate solution whereby a two stage boot is utilized... That way we
wouldn't have size limitations, and we could have other options such as the
Xenix "dos" boot option, etc...
I just don't want to write a two-stage bootloader...
--
hpeyerl@novatel.cuc.ab.ca (actual but UUCP) | NovAtel Commnications Ltd.
hpeyerl@fsa.ca <faster> | <nothing I say matters anyway>
<NetBSD: A drinking group with a serious computing problem!>