Probably figured out why Net/2 doesn’t work.

It’s not unresolved symbols, but rather deleted bodies…

From 22 years ago:

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!!!fauern!unido!mcsun!fuug!!seunet!kullmar!compuram!pgd
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: 386's UNIX kernel source
Message-ID: <>
Date: 11 Jan 92 08:24:27 GMT
References: <>
Lines: 50

Richard Tobin ( writes:
: In article <> (Lee M J McLoughlin) writes:
: >I can't say for sure but in the second Berkeley networking release
: >there appears to be enough source for unix and enough 386 specific
: >code to actually get a system up and running.
: The following from kern_exec.c suggests otherwise:
:             /*
:              * Body deleted.
:              */
:             return (ENOSYS);
:     }
: There are other similar functions.  Also, the standalone stuff needed
: for bootstrapping is incomplete.

Routines which are thus missing from the kernel are:
acct(), sysacct(), execve() with friends, physio(),
minphys(), rminit(), rmalloc(), rmfree(), ptrace(),
procxmt(), profil(),  cinit(), getc(), q_to_p(),
ndqb(), ndflush(), putc(), b_to_q(), nextc(),
unputc(),  bufinit(), bread(), breada(), bwrite(),
bdwrite(), bawrite(), brelse(), incore(), getblk(),
geteblk(), allocbuf(), getnewbuf(), biowait(), biodone()

I have looked them up in the unix v7 sources, and they amount to
approximately 800 lines of code.
Some I cannot find there. They are:
minphys(), rminit(), rmalloc(), rmfree(), procxmt(), nextc(),
unputc(), bufinit(), allocbuf(), getnewbuf()
Do they really containt AT&T code, or were they just kicked out "by

In any case, unless there are more surprises, it should not be too
hard to rewrite these routines. Many are quite straightforward.
Most routines contain 10-20 lines of code. One only 2.
Some are ridiculusly simple. In fact, I wonder how they can be
rewritten to not be identical with the AT&T ones. 

Now, I wonder, are these routines really identical to the Unix v7
routines, or are they modified by the BSD people?
That is, would it be possible to plug in the V7 routines, modify them,
and get it working, without having seen the actual bsd routines?

Per Lindqvist

Internet:   Fidonet: Per Lindqvist @ 2:201/332

So that is probably why it ‘works’ but doesn’t work. ¬†Oops.

This entry was posted in BSD, Net/2 by neozeed. Bookmark the permalink.

About neozeed

What is there to tell? I've loved UNIX like things since I was first exposed to QNX in highschool (we had the Unisys ICONS!), and spent the better time of my teenage years trying to get my own UNIX... I should have bought Coherent in retrospect.. Anyways latched onto Linux in 1992, and then got some old BSD admin books and have been hooked on the VAX BSD & other big/ancient things since...!

2 thoughts on “Probably figured out why Net/2 doesn’t work.

  1. …and in case Per Lindqvist reads this and wants to fix libXtaw compilation problems in his Xenix X11R4 distribution, he’s more than welcome, lol.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.