BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)

[rank1seeker at gmail.com]

----- Original Message -----
From: John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org>
To: rank1seeker at gmail.com
Cc: hackers at freebsd.org, "Roman Divacky" <rdivacky at freebsd.org>, "Andriy Gapon" <avg at freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:24:24 -0500
Subject: Re: BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)

> On Friday, March 02, 2012 10:17:03 am rank1seeker at gmail.com wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org>
> > To: rank1seeker at gmail.com
> > Cc: hackers at freebsd.org, "Roman Divacky" <rdivacky at freebsd.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg at freebsd.org>
> > Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:14:43 -0500
> > Subject: Re: BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)
> > 
> > 
> > > > However, avg@ might have found the actual cause of the bug.  And Roman did
> > > > indeed break this earlier.  Try the updated boot2_test.patch again.
> > > 
> > > You should still try this.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > John Baldwin
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Using patch:  MD5 (boot2_test.patch) = 72412f9b47b114302268561f12c1b46b
> > 
> > http://www.starforce.biz/stage2boot_1.jpg
> > 
> > This is the worst patch as even RE-typing doesn't work.
> > That is, it is completely unable to boot.
> > 
> > Throw me another patch!
> 
> Ah, was using sizeof() on the wrong thing, and I have a fix for the garbage
> you saw for kname as well.  Patch is updated at the normal URL.
> 
> > > Please don't treat John this way.  He has put in a lot of time for
> > > you, and many others, and is one of THE experts.
> > > 
> > > Chris
> > 
> > 
> > He didn't got a bad treatment, nor any side is angry.
> > Relax! ;)
> 
> Actually, you've been rather rude for the entire thread, I am just doing my
> best to ignore it in the interest of getting the bug fixed.
> 
> -- 
> John Baldwin
> 

I'm sorry if you think so, especially part where I am rude through the entire thread. That I can hardly believe.
I am also actively testing and am persistant in solving issue.
Or is problem in my perception?

Anyway, yours latest patch has a same md5 hash as a previous one and also built binary /boot/boot had same md5 hash.
So I've simply skipped installing boot code.


Domagoj Smolčić