On Sat, 11 May 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > This is not something that is meant for you to massage which root
> > partition you are going to boot up off of.
>
> I don't understand what it does, then. The original Whistle code
> was intended to attempt to boot 3 times from one partition, and
>
John Baldwin wrote:
> Terry, please see that Gordon isn't trying to reimplement Whistle's nextboot.
>
> Personally, I'm tired of missing the window in the loader to boot a test
> kernel, so what I want is to do 'nextboot foo -s' to boot /boot/foo/kernel
> into single user mode on the next boot an
On 11-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> I don't understand the "YES"/"NO" thing, then. There is one byte
> difference in the file length, which I don't think can be properly
> accounted, if you do the "YES"/"NO" thing.
He could make it NES for all it matters.
Terry, please see that Gordon isn't
Gordon Tetlow wrote:
[ ... ]
You *did* ask for comments...
> > There should be a list, so that in a brown-out or whatever, you
> > don't end up toggling back to the previous version accidently.
>
> This is not something that is meant for you to massage which root
> partition you are going to
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> > Is there anything that is wrong with the conceptual implementation of the
> > nextboot loader code that I've submitted? It definitely needs a code
> > cleanup on the forth side (which I'm not qualified to do), but if there
> > a
Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> Is there anything that is wrong with the conceptual implementation of the
> nextboot loader code that I've submitted? It definitely needs a code
> cleanup on the forth side (which I'm not qualified to do), but if there
> are no other objections, I'd really like to see this c
John Baldwin wrote:
> > Now is when I point out that the original nextboot predates the ELF
> > format conversion, as well as the new FORTH based loader code...
> > which predates running on anything other than i386 anyway (unless
> > you count my Motorolla Powerstack port, or Vogel's SPARC port,
Is there anything that is wrong with the conceptual implementation of the
nextboot loader code that I've submitted? It definitely needs a code
cleanup on the forth side (which I'm not qualified to do), but if there
are no other objections, I'd really like to see this code committed.
-gordon
To
On 10-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 10-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote:
>> > You also had to have:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> > 4/ The ability to specify a filesystem on another planet^H^H^H^H^H^Hdisk.
>>
>> Something you've missed in this version of nextboot is:
>>
>> 5/ wor
John Baldwin wrote:
> On 10-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > You also had to have:
[ ... ]
> > 4/ The ability to specify a filesystem on another planet^H^H^H^H^H^Hdisk.
>
> Something you've missed in this version of nextboot is:
>
> 5/ work on more than just i386
[ ... ]
> This only works
On 10-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote:
> You also had to have:
> 1/ a way of setting the boot specification list from the running system.
> 2/ a simple and unlikely-to-break method of ensuring that if the boot did NOT
> succeed, it did something DIFFERENT next time.
> 3/ the ability to read the sp
I would also like to clarify that I never knew that there was a
nextboot(8) functionality. Don't look at it as I'm trying to reimplement
it. I never knew it existed in the first place =)
-gordon
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of t
Picking a random message to respond to...
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> It's actually just as easy to make boot1 go read it itself, assuming
> boot1 has the ability to read. It also decouples it somewhat, which
> (IMO) is a good thing. This is actually the same effect they get fr
Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > Maybe you could ask Archie or Ambrisko to clarify the feature
> > > you're trying to replace, and then ask Mike about the code
> > > needed to do that?
>
> ehem..
> WHO wrote that?
> :-)
Me. My memory sucks for the time before I was there... ;^).
I thought it was A
Julian Elischer wrote:
> I wrote the original 'nextboot to use block 1 (ususally unused)
> to avoid under all circumstances writing into the filesystem.
>
> Also, part of the weakness of the current system is that it presumes you know
> which IS the root filesystem. The original nextboot took as
Julian Elischer [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote :
> ehem..
> WHO wrote that?
> :-)
I was talking about the code that James Harris and myself wrote for Array
Networks, which was contributed back to FreeBSD. It allows the loader(8) to
change existing files on a UFS filesystem. We wrote it so that we co
Gordon Tetlow wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > > I've finally learned enough forth to put together a diff to implement some
> > > nextboot functionality in the loader.
> > >
> > > Basically, the loader peeks into the first line of /boot/nextboot.conf to
> > > see if next
Jonathan Mini wrote:
>
>
> > Maybe you could ask Archie or Ambrisko to clarify the feature
> > you're trying to replace, and then ask Mike about the code
> > needed to do that?
ehem..
WHO wrote that?
:-)
My original aim was to allow a system to boot successfully using a
sequence of possible
Terry Lambert [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote :
> Michael Smith wrote:
> > I still think you're not thinking the processes associated with this
> > feature through carefully enough.
>
> Liten to Mike; he is the loader guru.
>
> I don't know how the file I/O is done for the "YES/NO" change,
> since I
Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> > I still think you're not thinking the processes associated with this
> > feature through carefully enough.
>
> Very possible. This was just a first cut of the feature and I'll be the
> first to admit that it's not pretty. I don't know forth so I was happy
> to get as far
Michael Smith wrote:
> I still think you're not thinking the processes associated with this
> feature through carefully enough.
Liten to Mike; he is the loader guru.
I don't know how the file I/O is done for the "YES/NO" change,
since I have to have a couple of browsers open to read FORTH
code.
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Michael Smith wrote:
> You're fooling yourself if you think that just because you're rewriting a
> different file, "something going wrong" isn't going to hose the user
> anyway.
True, but if I only hose /boot/nextboot.conf (which is going to be delete
when the machine enter
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Michael Smith wrote:
> > I've finally learned enough forth to put together a diff to implement some
> > nextboot functionality in the loader.
> >
> > Basically, the loader peeks into the first line of /boot/nextboot.conf to
> > see if nextboot_enable="YES" is there. If it i
> > > I've finally learned enough forth to put together a diff to implement som
> e
> > > nextboot functionality in the loader.
> > >
> > > Basically, the loader peeks into the first line of /boot/nextboot.conf to
>
> > > see if nextboot_enable="YES" is there. If it is, it reads the entire
>
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Michael Smith wrote:
> > I've finally learned enough forth to put together a diff to implement some
> > nextboot functionality in the loader.
> >
> > Basically, the loader peeks into the first line of /boot/nextboot.conf to
> > see if nextboot_enable="YES" is there. If it i
> I've finally learned enough forth to put together a diff to implement some
> nextboot functionality in the loader.
>
> Basically, the loader peeks into the first line of /boot/nextboot.conf to
> see if nextboot_enable="YES" is there. If it is, it reads the entire
> config, then rewrites the
26 matches
Mail list logo
