linux-mips-fnet
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: DECstation bootloader

To: linux-mips@fnet.fr
Subject: Re: DECstation bootloader
From: Harald Koerfgen <Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:00:50 +0200 (MEST)
In-reply-to: <199903281945.MAA22821@harmony.village.org>
Organization: none
Reply-to: "Harald Koerfgen" <Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de>
Sender: harry@franz.no.dom
Hi,

On 28-Mar-99 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <XFMail.990328182602.Harald.Koerfgen@home.ivm.de> Harald
> Koerfgen writes:
>: Well, I don't like this too. On the other hand, I don't see any benefit
>: from writing bootblocks or a two stage boot process when the PROM is
>: able
>: to handle this nicely for us.
> 
> You might want to look into the new bootblocks that were just
> committed to the NetBSD tree.  They are quite powerful.  You will
> likely not be able to get the PROMs to do everything you want on the
> DECstations.  The NetBSD folks have been dealing with the boot problem
> for literally years and likely have an excellent grasp on all the
> subtle issues involve.
> 
> No slight intened against the people working on this, but I really
> hate to see the wheel reinvented yet again :-(.

I hate this as well but there are technical reasons to do so, I'm afraid
:-(. 

AFAIK ext2, unlike ufs and ffs, doesn't reserve space for a bootloader
except block 0 of a partition. I hope I am wrong here, but I haven't found
anything in that direction.

That means that a two stage boot process, like Ultrix and NetBSD do it, is
a no go if you want to have an ext2 filesystem as the first partition on
a disk.

Maybe I am making the wrong assumptions here and I'd appreciate if someone
with more knowledge of ext2 can correct me.

---
Regards,
Harald

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>