Re: Proposal to fix booted_kernel on shark.
Richard Earnshaw <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:53:42 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.ports.arm32 |
|---|---|
| Organization | ARM Ltd. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> > That sounds like making life hard for the many in order to make life > > easier for the few. > > > > That's backwards in my opinion. Anyone doing a retrofit as you suggest > > isn't going to be worried anywhere near as much about such an anomaly as a > > normal day-to-day user, with a correctly installed system, who can't get > > proper system dumps or whatever. > > > > Anyway, why would anyone installing a new kernel on an a.out system want > > to install their kernel under any name other than "netbsd"? -- the patch > > only removes a ".aout" extension if it is present. > > The case that mrg's comment made me worry about was this: > > start with a stock 1.5.x system (/netbsd is a.out) > install /netbsd.aout from 1.6 to test retrofit > boot disk:\netbsd.aout > machdep.booted_kernel claims the OLD kernel was booted But that's easily avoided by installing your test kernel as, say, /testnetbsd (or indeed, anything that doesn't end in .aout). > > Is it safe to call printf() from ofw_device_register()? If we can add a > status line to note that the kernel name is being changed, then I'm happy. I'm not sure, shouldn't be hard to test though -- kernel will either print things correctly or lock up. > BTW this is pullup-1-6 #1081, so if the consensus is that shark owners are > expected to be clueful, that is fine too and I'll tell them to take it as is. Something similar on Cats would be useful as well. R.