> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 09:50:17AM +0000, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: > > > i wrote: > > > > > I think it still has good reason to exist. > > > > > > Ady wrote: > > > > Would you please clarify what do you mean with "it"? > > > > > > "It" was the code part about > > > > > > xor %cx, %cx /* Clear EBIOS flag. */ > > > > > > which Martin mentioned as "can be ignored" in the the text which i > > > quoted before my statement. > ... > > _ clarification from Martin (since I asked a similar question regarding > > his own email/wording); and > > Yes, it's the xor %cx, %cx we're talking about. Which might seem > overkill now that we know that David's BIOS _didn't_ corrupt CX. > And given that space in isohdpfx is very limited (432 bytes) perhaps > the right thing might be to not have that xor in there. > > But then better safe than sorry, and given that there is space _now_, > why not? > > > > _ after reverting the (wrong) commit 48e94f4fa7b3c3..., whether the 2 > > sections of Martin's patch should rather be applied as one commit, or 2 > > separate commits, or just the first part of the patch should be > > applied. > > The patch in <http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2017-March/025706.html> > should be applied after reverting > 48e94f4fa7b3c32cbd43b6e57c64bc933f76d059. > > > Except possibly the xor %cx, %cx part as above depending on how > causcious or spacesaving you want to be. > > It seems both Thomas and I think it should remain. > > > -- > MartinSThen I would suggest: 1_ revert the wrong commit; 2_ apply the first part of the "right" patch in one commit, as it corrects one known bug; 3_ apply the second part of the "right" patch in a separated commit, which can potentially deal with a different situation than the first part of the patch, and, if for some reason additional space is needed in the future, it could be considered on its own for future edition. Regards, Ady.
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Ady Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote:> >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 09:50:17AM +0000, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: >> > > i wrote: >> > > > > I think it still has good reason to exist. >> > > >> > > Ady wrote: >> > > > Would you please clarify what do you mean with "it"? >> > > >> > > "It" was the code part about >> > > >> > > xor %cx, %cx /* Clear EBIOS flag. */ >> > > >> > > which Martin mentioned as "can be ignored" in the the text which i >> > > quoted before my statement. >> ... >> > _ clarification from Martin (since I asked a similar question regarding >> > his own email/wording); and >> >> Yes, it's the xor %cx, %cx we're talking about. Which might seem >> overkill now that we know that David's BIOS _didn't_ corrupt CX. >> And given that space in isohdpfx is very limited (432 bytes) perhaps >> the right thing might be to not have that xor in there. >> >> But then better safe than sorry, and given that there is space _now_, >> why not? >> >> >> > _ after reverting the (wrong) commit 48e94f4fa7b3c3..., whether the 2 >> > sections of Martin's patch should rather be applied as one commit, or 2 >> > separate commits, or just the first part of the patch should be >> > applied. >> >> The patch in <http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2017-March/025706.html> >> should be applied after reverting >> 48e94f4fa7b3c32cbd43b6e57c64bc933f76d059. >> >> >> Except possibly the xor %cx, %cx part as above depending on how >> causcious or spacesaving you want to be. >> >> It seems both Thomas and I think it should remain. >> >> >> -- >> MartinS > > > Then I would suggest: > 1_ revert the wrong commit; > 2_ apply the first part of the "right" patch in one commit, as it > corrects one known bug; > 3_ apply the second part of the "right" patch in a separated commit, > which can potentially deal with a different situation than the first > part of the patch, and, if for some reason additional space is needed > in the future, it could be considered on its own for future edition. >Essentially the approach I took on the isohdpfx branch on my personal repos. -- -Gene
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Ady Ady via Syslinux > <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 09:50:17AM +0000, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: > >> > > i wrote: > >> > > > > I think it still has good reason to exist. > >> > > > >> > > Ady wrote: > >> > > > Would you please clarify what do you mean with "it"? > >> > > > >> > > "It" was the code part about > >> > > > >> > > xor %cx, %cx /* Clear EBIOS flag. */ > >> > > > >> > > which Martin mentioned as "can be ignored" in the the text which i > >> > > quoted before my statement. > >> ... > >> > _ clarification from Martin (since I asked a similar question regarding > >> > his own email/wording); and > >> > >> Yes, it's the xor %cx, %cx we're talking about. Which might seem > >> overkill now that we know that David's BIOS _didn't_ corrupt CX. > >> And given that space in isohdpfx is very limited (432 bytes) perhaps > >> the right thing might be to not have that xor in there. > >> > >> But then better safe than sorry, and given that there is space _now_, > >> why not? > >> > >> > >> > _ after reverting the (wrong) commit 48e94f4fa7b3c3..., whether the 2 > >> > sections of Martin's patch should rather be applied as one commit, or 2 > >> > separate commits, or just the first part of the patch should be > >> > applied. > >> > >> The patch in <http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2017-March/025706.html> > >> should be applied after reverting > >> 48e94f4fa7b3c32cbd43b6e57c64bc933f76d059. > >> > >> > >> Except possibly the xor %cx, %cx part as above depending on how > >> causcious or spacesaving you want to be. > >> > >> It seems both Thomas and I think it should remain. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> MartinS > > > > > > Then I would suggest: > > 1_ revert the wrong commit; > > 2_ apply the first part of the "right" patch in one commit, as it > > corrects one known bug; > > 3_ apply the second part of the "right" patch in a separated commit, > > which can potentially deal with a different situation than the first > > part of the patch, and, if for some reason additional space is needed > > in the future, it could be considered on its own for future edition. > > > > Essentially the approach I took on the isohdpfx branch on my personal repos. > -- > -GeneGene, IMHO, not really. It should rather be in 3 commits: One reverts, second applies the first part of the right one from Martin, and third commit applies the second part of the patch. Reasoning: When/if a distro wants to cherrypick the commits, the first revert should not be needed. Having only 2 commits as you did in your repo, it makes the cherrypick unnecessary complex, having to take 3 commits instead of of 2. Additionally, having 3 commits would make it easier to apply the same patch (by using the last 2 commits I am sugggesting) to the older branches (syslinux-3.xx and syslinux-4.xx), which are even more relevant in this situation than the need for 6.xx. Regards, Ady.
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:14:39AM -0400, Gene Cumm via Syslinux wrote:> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote: > > > > Then I would suggest: > > 1_ revert the wrong commit; > > 2_ apply the first part of the "right" patch in one commit, as it > > corrects one known bug; > > 3_ apply the second part of the "right" patch in a separated commit, > > which can potentially deal with a different situation than the first > > part of the patch, and, if for some reason additional space is needed > > in the future, it could be considered on its own for future edition. > > > > Essentially the approach I took on the isohdpfx branch on my personal repos.And meanwhile at the more central git repository. Thank you Gene. @Martin: I think `git rebase master` might need minor manual labour. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven