Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!news.world.net!news.teleport.com!news.teleport.com!not-for-mail
From: bmk@teleport.com (bmk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: FreeBSD SoundBlaster support
Date: 7 Aug 1994 13:27:04 -0700
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <323g2o$93c@sandra.teleport.com>
References: <321lar$k58@qualcomm.com> <323cbg$mo9@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandra.teleport.com
In article <323cbg$mo9@agate.berkeley.edu>,
<tmonroe@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>I know that you would have preferred email, but this (I think) is
>important enough to tell everyone about. I recently upgraded to
>1.1.5.1, and I tried to use the same kernel config file to build my
>first 1.1.5.1 kernel. Under 1.1R, my Sound Blaster kernel was ~576K.
>However, under 1.1.5.1, the same kernel config file produced a kernel
>which, although under 640K, wasn't far enough under 640K that the
>kernel could function properly. (It was about 639K.) It would reboot
>in the middle of the reboot, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Perhaps the
>core team could explain this behavior? And what makes the Sound
>Blaster code bloat the kernel to such an ungainly size?
My kernel (with SB support compiled in, all of the devices and such I
don't need strippted out) weighs in at 670393 (654K) bytes. This is
under 1.1.5.1-RELEASE.
I thought that there was a limit of 640K? Under 1.1-BETA, I couldn't
use a kernel over 640K; now I can. Hmmm.
--
bmk@teleport.com | "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
Portland, OR | yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is
| to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
| fathers used in the struggle for independence."-C.A. Beard