> Let me double check what the status of 6.04-pre1 is. Maybe this patch > is not necessary at all!Just a reminder: _ 6.04-pre1 can be downloaded from kernel.org, and it includes pre-built binaries, so no "make" anything is needed (and to some degree, not always recommended). _ In many cases, testing with pre-built official binaries is desired, so others can attempt to reproduce the results, minimizing the impact of potential differences in building environments. _ All Syslinux-related files should be originated from the same build / version. Mixing, for example, syslinux.efi from one build with ldlinux.e64 (or any c32 file) from another build is very much discouraged, unless explicitly requested for some very specific test. _ It is very easy to mistakenly mix c32 files from one platform (say, efi32) with the equivalent c32 from another platform (say, from efi64), because they only differ in their respective path directories (they have the same name, except for ldlinux.*). Using the "wrong" c32 file (e.g. pertaining to a different platform than the one is being attempted to boot) will result in unpredictable behavior. _ 6.04-pre1 is not "perfect", but it is a relevant test in the current context. Regards, Ady.
>> Let me double check what the status of 6.04-pre1 is. Maybe this patch >> is not necessary at all!OK, I have verified beyond doubt that 6.04-pre1 (prebuilt from kernel.org) indeed does fix the issue on the affected systems. Again, sorry for the churn! Best Regards, - Chris
> >> Let me double check what the status of 6.04-pre1 is. Maybe this patch > >> is not necessary at all! > > OK, I have verified beyond doubt that 6.04-pre1 (prebuilt from > kernel.org) indeed does fix the issue on the affected systems. > > Again, sorry for the churn! > > Best Regards, > - ChrisOK, so, from the user's point of view, the solution is already in 6.04-pre1. Yet, I would like to express my appreciation for the proposed patches, the information and the feedback; really. The proposed patches might help some package maintainer that is not ready / willing to update to 6.04(-pre1). Moreover, the last proposed patch might trigger the re-evaluation of the current code anyway, looking for some potential improvement. @geneC, hpa, everyone... Considering prior email threads about some popular hardware failing with Syslinux version 6.03 in some way or another (e.g. HP Proliant gen9 among others), I am now wondering whether this issue (i.e. red zone flag, Windows ABI compatibility) should be mentioned in the official Syslinux wiki, with links to potential patches and/or commits and/or suggesting to test 6.04-pre1. The same wondering goes to the Chromebooks matter (which is unrelated to this particular email thread). Wiki pages such as "Hardware Compatibility", "Common Problems" and "Building" might come to mind. Any comments / thoughts? Regards, Ady.