Hi all!
If we follow our usual schedule, the December Status Meeting would be
today. With such a late announcement and many people still on holidays,
I suggest postponing it to next Thursday, January 4, 2018. Time will be
19:00 UTC as always.
I already asked on #reactos-dev and got some approvals, so consider this
the official meeting invitation :)
This also gives you one week from now for agenda proposals.
Additionally, we have got some new contributors in the recent months.
If you think you should join the meeting or know somebody who should
join, please let me know in advance.
See you all next year!
Colin
Good day everyone.
I'm talking about this repo:
https://github.com/reactos/reactos-deprecated-gitsvn-dont-use
To prevent pull-requesting to it I suggest to use new GitHub feature "archive this repository".
To enable it, just open the "Settings" page and go to the bottom.
"Archived" repos are marked as read-only and could not be pull-requested.
It's also would be nice to disable unused "Projects" tab in this repo for the great justice of perfectionism.
___
Dmitry D. Chernov
Hi all!
With all release preparations done, we can finally give a release date
for ReactOS 0.4.7: Tomorrow, Wednesday, 6th December 2017. During that
day (European time), the release will be published.
A Press Kit for ReactOS 0.4.7 is already available:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/reactos/files/ReactOS/0.4.7/ReactOS-0.4.7-…
Feel free to send it to interested parties to let them know about the
upcoming release in advance.
Best regards,
Colin Finck
Hi,
Let's try not removing (ZAPPING) API due to future use okay?
Just #if it out with the correct __NTZYX__ thing.
So if I wish to have VISTA or Server 201X, I can select it while running
the configuration script. Do it this way so someone could select Server
2003 (Default now) later on.
Same or better TEAM!
Think about what will be needed later on.
ZAPPING OUT!
James
Hi all!
Recenly a new Reddit post came up on #reactos IRC:
https://redd.it/7jj0oa. Interesting stuff.
A person is giving away ~5000 BTC for charitable causes. We can apply
via the website but it must be done by someone from ReactOS e.V.
--
Cheers,
Alexander Shaposhnikov
Hi all,
I have been looking into our HALs recently on the promise that it is a
huge mess that needs fixing. Well, as a start I could imagine merging
our 6 possible x86 HALs (Legacy, ACPI, APIC, ACPI+APIC, SMP, SMP+ACPI)
into a single one, even if Windows ships individual ones. I see many
advantages of that:
* Less duplications and reduced mess: Right now, the APIC HAL hangs at
HalpCalibrateStallExecution during boot, a function that has been fixed
and universally implemented in all non-APIC HALs. The APIC HAL also
duplicates HalpInitializePICs as HalpInitializeLegacyPIC.
If you look at the SMP code, it didn't even receive the last build
system changes and has conflicting implementations for APIC functions.
A single x86 HAL would ensure that all possible configurations are
maintained.
* Future-proof: How is one going to implement newer features like x2APIC
with a structure like that? Would it get another HAL, be integrated into
the APIC HAL, or what?
We wouldn't have such problems with a single x86 HAL.
* Less setup work and testing: Currently, 1st stage setup detects the
computer type and installs the appropriate HAL. As such, every
additional HAL needs to be added to 1st stage setup code.
The user is also able to select a custom HAL during setup, even if it
wouldn't work on the machine. We should give neither the user nor the
setup the ability to decide. The HAL itself knows best at boot-up what
features to enable and what not.
* Convenience: The same ReactOS installation could be used on several
different x86 computers.
So is this the way to go or do I miss something important?
Best regards,
Colin
I would move to the Win8+ HAL Model -- a single HAL for APIC, ACPI with
runtime support for UEFI (if present) and MP (if present).
If people still want to run on a PIC VM (why???) or old computer, then we
can also maintain the HAL PIC x86 for UP.
Hence there would only be 2 HALs.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:
> Am 11.12.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO:> If you basically
> put all the HALs into one, then you obtain bloated stuff (which remains
> in memory for the whole life of the OS). Example: standard HAL is 1MB
> vs. ACPI HAL which is few kBHave you actually checked what makes up this
> difference?
> Hint: hal/halx86/legacy/bus/pci_vendors.ids
>
>
> > Note that if Windows nowadays has only one hal, it's because they now
> support basically only one "architecture"/platform, namely, ACPI
> multiprocessor (to put it simple). It has its pros, but also a lot of cons.
>
> That doesn't mean we need to do the same. We can have one HAL for all
> (Pentium and newer) x86 platforms. The overhead of additional checks at
> boot-up is negligible. That should be a solution for 99% of the people
> out there. The rest may still go and trim down our HAL to their needs.
>
> But let's not pretend we can maintain multiple x86 HALs for all x86
> computers out there. Do you really want to test X HALs with Y different
> systems? Ensure that a legacy HAL runs on a modern ACPI system? What
> would be the point?
>
>
> > Besides this, I've a question about your observation that in the APIC
> hal (not ACPI) there's different implementation of
> HalpCalibrateStallExecution and HalpInitializePICs /
> HalpInitializeLegacyPIC . Isn't it precisely because these stuff are
> completely different from the standard PICs used in platforms for which the
> standard HAL (and possibly the ACPI HAL) are used?
>
> Absolutely not! You need to reprogram the standard PICs also on an APIC
> system, and this is precisely what both functions do. Put them into a
> diff tool to see for yourself.
>
> The same goes for timers. Even with the introduction of ACPI Timers,
> Local APIC Timers, and Time-Stamp Counters, you still need a traditional
> one (like RTC or PIT) for calibration at system startup. Simply because
> the newer ones don't run at a known fixed frequency.
> The Legacy HAL successfully employs an algorithm based on the RTC while
> the APIC HAL unsuccessfully tries to use the PIT.
>
>
> > Actually we should, because the detection might not work (of course in
> our simple case "ACPI UP/MP" vs. "Standard", it's simple, but think about
> other platforms where there can be subtle differences)
>
> Tell me about a single one we cannot detect and which is worth to
> support. I don't recall that we ever recommended our testers to choose a
> different HAL at setup.
>
>
> > And normally it's not the setup that decides about the HAL, but the
> bootloader.
>
> That defies your previous point about the setup initializing the
> registry depending on the HAL.
> If we can let the user select a Legacy HAL in the boot loader after
> installing with an ACPI HAL, it is also technically possible to have one
> HAL that encompasses both.
>
>
> - Colin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
