Subject: Re: renaming /boot to /boot_
To: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 09/29/1999 15:14:00
In message <email@example.com>,
Chris G. Demetriou writes:
>hard-coding the addresses of /boot is evil, and it's avoidable in many
>cases. The alpha, for instance, didn't used to fit. careful tuning
>of libsa, etc., and some trimming of code _made_ it fit.
Simon Burge did the same for the pmax at about the same time. Apart
from really sick cases (x86 with `dedicated disk' to get around
BIOS-to-real-geometry mapping gotchas comes to mind) there's no real
reason to pin the blocks of a secondary bootstrap. Just go through
the filesystem, and installboot becomes a no-op
(unless we actually change the primary bootstrap code).
>It would be a real shame to take a step backwards _again_, and moving
>/boot to /boot/<foo> would do that for the alpha, or bring it a lot
>closer to doing so. (certainly, the LFS boot block wouldn't
>fit... and it's the one that most needs to look things up by block
Does the LFS code used for standalone have #ifdefs analogous to the
standalone ufs.c? If it has to read the / directory to find /boot, how
much more is really needed to find /boot/alpha.boot?