Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!foxhound.dsto.gov.au!fang.dsto.gov.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!convex!csmith
From: csmith@convex.com (Chris Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Subject: Re: Bootblock for i386 developers?
Date: 10 Mar 1994 12:29:48 GMT
Organization: CONVEX News Network, Engineering (cnn.eng), Richardson, Tx USA
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <2ln3rs$6me@lovecraft.convex.com>
References: <2l8odf$h6k@nic.scruz.net> <MYCROFT.94Mar6135120@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: magnum.convex.com
From: mycroft@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Date: 06 Mar 1994 18:51:19 GMT
I did quite a bit of work to `clean up' the BIOS boot block in
NetBSD-current.
Great! Did you fix it so it will boot from sd2a? I recently tried
to install netbsd 0.9 and gave up when I found
if (*cp >= '0' && *cp <= '9')
if ((unit = *cp++ - '0') > 1) {
printf("Bad unit\n");
return 1;
}
in boot/sys.c. You *can't* fool it into booting from sd(2,a), and you
can't fix this without already having it, so I'm stuck.
I don't actually know what this check is for, but surely specifying
82h when you don't have one is no worse than specifying 81h when you
don't have that?