From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 12:42:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD7616A4CE; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:42:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (ms-smtp-03-lbl.southeast.rr.com [24.25.9.102]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BDF43F75; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:42:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jason@ec.rr.com) Received: from ec.rr.com (cpe-024-211-231-149.ec.rr.com [24.211.231.149]) hABKgi6F029231; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:42:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FB149A1.2070105@ec.rr.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:42:09 -0500 From: Jason User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Found a problem with new source code X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:42:53 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: >On 11-Nov-2003 Jason wrote: > > >>I just wanted to let someone know that my buildworld fails at >>/usr/src/sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c at line 362. I get an undefined >>error for RB_BOOTINFO, by adding #define RB_BOOTINFO 0x1f it worked. >>Also it failed at sendmail.fc or something, I don't use send mail so I >>just did not build it. It looks like someone already reported the >>device apic problem. I just tryed option smp and device apic on my >>single proc athlon, panic on boot unless I chose no apic or is it no >>acpi(?) at boot. >> >> > >No ACPI is what you can choose at boot. Can you post the panic message? > > > >>By the way, why adding the smp options do any good for my machine? I >>mostly care about speed, but it seems it might just make the os unstable >>for me. >> >> > >You can always compile a custom kernel without SMP if you wish. device >apic can be helpful because PCI devices do not have to share interrupts. >Enabling SMP in GENERIC means that SMP machines now work out of the box. >It also means that a sysadmin can use one kernel across both UP and SMP >machines in a hetergeneous environment which can ease system >administration in some cases. > > > I like the idea of not sharing irqs. Can I have apic without smp on? Thanks, Jason