> > kernel.c:new_linux_kernel() to load_linux.c:bios_boot_linux() because > > there is no convenient way in new_linux_kernel() to control the boot > > flags value. > > This is the part that has me questioning things and trying to recall > if any other KERNEL-like directives ever utilize keeppxe. >@Gene, Not being a developer myself, I don't understand this "other KERNEL-like directives" sentence. I do know what "kernel-like directives" means, but I do not know which one is the one you are referring to here, and why "_other_ KERNEL-like directives" would be a concern. I mean, other than the behavior regarding file name extensions, shouldn't the KERNEL-like directives relevant in this case be equivalent to each other? (FWIW, I say "relevant" because I am assuming that the "CONFIG" and the "LOCALBOOT" directives are not so relevant in this context; are they?). One case that has been affected by the lack of KEEPPXE support / parsing since Syslinux v.5+ is Reactos, which is supposed to be bootable by either mboot.c32 or by chain.c32. In the case of chain.c32, the current default values for Reactos are incorrect, so specifying adequate values manually in its command is required, in addition to fixing the keeppxe matter. I mention Reactos so to provide - for someone else, willing to test - one way of testing the patch, comparing the results with the behavior of Syslinux v.4.05 while using the same configuration file in both tests. TIA, Ady.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:> >> > kernel.c:new_linux_kernel() to load_linux.c:bios_boot_linux() because >> > there is no convenient way in new_linux_kernel() to control the boot >> > flags value. >> >> This is the part that has me questioning things and trying to recall >> if any other KERNEL-like directives ever utilize keeppxe. >> > > @Gene, > > Not being a developer myself, I don't understand this "other > KERNEL-like directives" sentence. I do know what "kernel-likeThose directives which acts like KERNEL, specifying a binary to execute. BOOT BSS COM32 COMBOOT CONFIG FDIMAGE LINUX LOCALBOOT PXE.> directives" means, but I do not know which one is the one you are > referring to here, and why "_other_ KERNEL-like directives" would be aI'm referring to all of the above collectively.> concern. I mean, other than the behavior regarding file name > extensions, shouldn't the KERNEL-like directives relevant in this case > be equivalent to each other? (FWIW, I say "relevant" because I am > assuming that the "CONFIG" and the "LOCALBOOT" directives are not so > relevant in this context; are they?).KERNEL guesses what the proper loading method is and should generally be avoided. A few years back, a distribution had a kernel that ended in ".0" while using KERNEL resulting in PXE behavior instead of LINUX.> One case that has been affected by the lack of KEEPPXE support / > parsing since Syslinux v.5+ is Reactos, which is supposed to be > bootable by either mboot.c32 or by chain.c32. In the case of chain.c32,In my opinion, COM32s should be handling "keeppxe" themselves programatically, directly or via library calls. COMBOOT has been removed at this point but it's questionable whether the core or the COMBOOT binary should handle "keeppxe". The remaining KERNEL-like directives should have "keeppxe" handled by the core, if appropriate. HPA, thoughts?> the current default values for Reactos are incorrect, so specifying > adequate values manually in its command is required, in addition to > fixing the keeppxe matter. I mention Reactos so to provide - for > someone else, willing to test - one way of testing the patch, comparing > the results with the behavior of Syslinux v.4.05 while using the same > configuration file in both tests.This makes me think that mboot.c32 and chain.c32 should be enhanced to provide this. -- -Gene
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > > >> > kernel.c:new_linux_kernel() to load_linux.c:bios_boot_linux() because > >> > there is no convenient way in new_linux_kernel() to control the boot > >> > flags value. > >> > >> This is the part that has me questioning things and trying to recall > >> if any other KERNEL-like directives ever utilize keeppxe. > >> > > > > @Gene, > > > > Not being a developer myself, I don't understand this "other > > KERNEL-like directives" sentence. I do know what "kernel-like > > Those directives which acts like KERNEL, specifying a binary to > execute. BOOT BSS COM32 COMBOOT CONFIG FDIMAGE LINUX LOCALBOOT PXE. > > > directives" means, but I do not know which one is the one you are > > referring to here, and why "_other_ KERNEL-like directives" would be a > > I'm referring to all of the above collectively. > > > concern. I mean, other than the behavior regarding file name > > extensions, shouldn't the KERNEL-like directives relevant in this case > > be equivalent to each other? (FWIW, I say "relevant" because I am > > assuming that the "CONFIG" and the "LOCALBOOT" directives are not so > > relevant in this context; are they?). > > KERNEL guesses what the proper loading method is and should generally > be avoided. A few years back, a distribution had a kernel that ended > in ".0" while using KERNEL resulting in PXE behavior instead of LINUX. >Perhaps I wasn't clear in my question. As I said, I _do_ know what "KERNEL-like directives" means, which ones they are, and their behavior regarding file name extensions. The part that I did _not_ understand is (other than not being able to understand the code itself, since I am not a dev.): "...if any other KERNEL-like directives ever utilize keeppxe." When you wrote "any other..." I took it as "there is (at least) _one_ kernel-like directive that is related or used or mentioned in the code you were referring to, and then there are _other_ kernel-like directives that were not explicitly related / used / mentioned in the code, and that you were not sure whether any (one) of these _other_ kernel-like directives ever use / parse keeppxe (too). So my thought (or my understanding from your wording) was that there seems to be possible that one kernel-like directive might have one behavior (or capabilities) regarding keeppxe and other kernel-like directives might behave differently than the first one. If my interpretation (of your wording) were to be correct, then it would imply that there are differences between some kernel-like directives (other than the different behaviors regarding file name extensions). If such different behavior (in response or in relation to using the keeppxe option) exists in some kernel-like directives, I wasn't aware of it and your sentence confused me. I was asking for clarification, because my aforementioned interpretation of your words seems to be contradicting my prior understanding of kernel-like directives. Hopefully, this email clarifies my question. TIA, Ady. PS: Considering that linux.c32 is based on the LINUX directive (which is a kernel-like directive) with some additions, perhaps linux.c32 should (also) get the capability of parsing / using keeppxe?