On 2022-Jul-19, at 15:45, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:42 PM Glen Barber <g...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> . . . >> >> My concern with this is kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs is always '1' on >> the builders, which effectively means all arm builds will fail every >> time. I think we need to get to the actual root of the problem here, >> versus applying band-aids to a shark bite. > > I think this is the actual problem. While such pedantry can be useful for > ancient picky BIOSes, these days only the LBA fields of the MBR are used. And > the fake BIOS geometry is crazy weird. We can likely tweak it to be more > friendly. > > Why is it == 1 on the builder? If people want things aligned gpart has an > option for years iirc to do that. And we want that off for the builds.
Would it seem appropriate to use a week (this week?) to do all the snapshot builds with the builders all set to have kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs=0 and see what breaks, if anything? (Sort of a snapshot exp run.) More than just the SBC images might be involved for kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_ch consequences, for all I know. > Warner > > P.s. the last BIOS that I had to deal with where this mattered was a 133MHz > pentium PC104 board in 2002 or 2003. === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
