Geert Stappers
2014-May-21 04:26 UTC
[syslinux] "EDD Load error" on btrfs, patch committed
Op 2014-05-20 om 16:28 schreef H. Peter Anvin:> On 05/20/2014 12:24 PM, Paulo Alcantara wrote: > > > > Actually, there is *no* 64KiB limit on btrfs. Look at btrfs-progs > > (ctree.h:830): > > > > " > > /* > > * We don't want to overwrite 1M at the beginning of device, even though > > * there is our 1st superblock at 64k. Some possible reasons: > > * - the first 64k blank is useful for some boot loader/manager > > * - the first 1M could be scratched by buggy partitioner or somesuch > > */ > > #define BTRFS_BLOCK_RESERVED_1M_FOR_SUPER ((u64)1024 * 1024) > > " > > > > 1MiB seems to be a reasonable size to fit bootsector + LDLINUX.SYS in. I > > don't know exactly how Syslinux is handling this, but it should be using > > the whole available space (1MiB instead). > > > > I have tried to get a formal ruling on the use of this from the btrfs > crowd, but haven't gotten one yet. I might need to give up at playing > it nice and Just Do It[TM].There was an patch committed on the btrfs branch in git. Is that ready for testing?> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg34117.htmlGroeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
Geert Stappers
2014-May-21 08:09 UTC
[syslinux] "EDD Load error" on btrfs, patch committed
Op 2014-05-21 om 06:26 schreef Geert Stappers:> Op 2014-05-20 om 16:28 schreef H. Peter Anvin:<snip/>> > > > I have tried to get a formal ruling on the use of this from the btrfs > > crowd, but haven't gotten one yet. I might need to give up at playing > > it nice and Just Do It[TM]. > > There was an patch committed on the btrfs branch in git.Not the btrfs branch, on the main branch.> Is that ready for testing?I think it is Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
H. Peter Anvin
2014-May-21 20:15 UTC
[syslinux] "EDD Load error" on btrfs, patch committed
On 05/21/2014 01:09 AM, Geert Stappers wrote:> Op 2014-05-21 om 06:26 schreef Geert Stappers: >> Op 2014-05-20 om 16:28 schreef H. Peter Anvin: > <snip/> >>> >>> I have tried to get a formal ruling on the use of this from the btrfs >>> crowd, but haven't gotten one yet. I might need to give up at playing >>> it nice and Just Do It[TM]. >> >> There was an patch committed on the btrfs branch in git. > > Not the btrfs branch, on the main branch. > > >> Is that ready for testing? > > I think it is >Yes it is. Chris Mason got back to me. However, I'm still having problems with my test scripts, so something is still wonky. -hpa