Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:50:28 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 5.2-RELEASE TODO Message-ID: <20031202104513.C84301@light.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <20031201171044.N54268@pooker.samsco.home> References: <200312011501.hB1F1NJe048491@fledge.watson.org> <20031201171044.N54268@pooker.samsco.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Scott Long wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > On Monday, 1 December 2003 at 10:01:23 -0500, Robert Watson wrote: ... > > > > I'm currently investigating ACPI problems on a dual processor Intel > > motherboard (re@ knows about this). It looks as if the new code is > > much fussier than the old code about the quality of the motherboard > > BIOS: this machine runs fine on 5.1, but won't finish booting on > > 5.2-BETA. Yes, this is probably an ACPI bug, but users aren't going > > to see it that way: if we release a 5.2 which won't boot on a lot of > > machines, people are going to blame 5.2, not the machine. I think we > > should ensure that there's at least a fallback for machines with > > broken ACPI. > > This argument is exactly why I added the 'disable acpi' option in the boot > loader menu. Of course, we STILL need to get good debugging information > from you as to why you get a Trap 9 when ACPI is disabled. This is the > more important issue. Just to be complete, there are already a whole bunch of machines that will not boot 5.x, irregardless of the ACPI issues. I've never been able to boot 5.x with ACPI on or off, on any of the 5 Dell PowerEdge 6350 servers I have here, even though they run 4.9 perfectly. I have a PR open on it. So even without the ACPI issues on some hardware, there are still other reasons why 5.x is going to fail to boot. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031202104513.C84301>