similar to: EDD errors from extlinux on USB

Hello, I use the extlinux bootloader, and I've recently discovered that the current version can no longer boot Windows. The message it flashes is "Requested partition not found!" After downgrading to the version 3.86, it was able boot correctly. Unfortunately, I do not know in which was the last version which was able to boot Windows (I rarely boot it), but I am pretty sure that

I am using gPXE 1.0.0 to boot PXELINUX 3.86 over HTTP without problems, but when I switch pxelinux.0 3.86 with 4.00-pre47, I get ?Unable to locate configuration file?. Is HTTP booting not working with 4.00, or is some special compile/settings needed?

Hi, I compiled a 3.0 kernel for my system, used the same config of my already working 2.6.39.1 kernel on the same system. But whenever extlinux tries to load my 3.0 kernel it crashes instantly and reboots, not even 1 kernel msg is displayed. So it seems like the kernel isn't loaded at all and crashes. Rgds, /reni

Hi, Yesterday I tried pre47 on my laptop. In general it worked fine in a very simpley setup booting Linux from ext2 via menu.c32. But pressing TAB didn't give me a visible cursor, so command line editing was a little tricky. -- Regards, Feri.

EDD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Disk_Drive) is a BIOS INT 13h subcall for communicating the extended size of the boot disk over 8GB to the OS. Since libguestfs doesn't use a boot disk, and the appliance disk is limited to 4GB, and we use virtio-scsi, this is all useless. EDD is also broken currently on RHEL 7.3, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404287 Also the

Hi all! Running Centos-6.latest on an AMD six-core Vishera processor. It's been running for a year on that hardware. today I swapped out the video card (from Nvidia 9800GT to Nvidia 460 GTX) hoping to get a little more horsepower, and the ability to run the Folding At Home GPUclient. I know that's an old card, it's a hand-me-down from my son who just replaced it with a new 970 GTX

I ran into this when I was reviewing what was outstanding to get NetWare to run fully virtualized. The BIOS emulator code has the segment and offset backward in the returned buffer for the int 13h, fn 48h BIOS call. BTW: This is fixed in current Bochs emulator upstream code. Signed-off-by: Bruce Rogers <brogers@novell.com> diff -r 59b8768d0d0d tools/firmware/rombios/rombios.c ---

I have an application/program which shows 'bios EDD error' when using Isolinux (with either loading an image directly through MEMDISK, or booting to A:), and not when using a bootdisk directly or booting a bootdisk directly which has SYSLINUX on it. configuration: bootable cdrom with Isolinux 2.11/2.12pre9 as bootloader. 1.44MB bootdisk with MSDOS.SYS/IO.SYS and the UDMA2 dos driver,

>The way the El Torito CD-ROM is going to look like to the program, is >that it looks like an additional hard disk which a very high drive >number (typically 9Fh or so); MS-DOS will normally ignore this since it >asks the BIOS how many drives there are and ignores the rest. >Does the error message come from UDMA2.SYS or...? > -hpa yes, it comes from UDMA2.SYS, it does a

>No, but you can write a comboot/com32 module to do it if you wish. I meant for syslinux.exe/com (the installer). that BIOS issue is now handled in the driver the author wrote. Unfortunately I can't find another cdrom which boots but lets me access A: to really demonstrate it's the BIOS which is doing this. Every non-emulation cdrom either uses isolinux (even ReactOS bootloader) or

Oops! My mistake in my 'freedos' branch. Silly mistake. - Shao diff --git a/memdisk/memdisk.inc b/memdisk/memdisk.inc index 237e020..9c19b58 100644 --- a/memdisk/memdisk.inc +++ b/memdisk/memdisk.inc @@ -980,8 +980,9 @@ EDD_DPT: .dpilen db 2ch ; DPI len .res1 db 0 ; Reserved .res2 dw 0 ; Reserved

Op 2014-02-20 om 13:23 schreef Andy Alex: > DL register is not set to drive number when detecting EDD for drive, so detection may fail. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Alex<andy at r-tt.com> > --- > diff -uprN syslinux-6.02.orig/core/fs/diskio_bios.c syslinux-6.02/core/fs/diskio_bios.c > --- syslinux-6.02.orig/core/fs/diskio_bios.c 2013-10-13 21:59:03.000000000 +0400 > +++

On 05/19/2014 11:20 AM, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > Hi > > I have a computer with BIOS and Linux Arch installed. > > Starting from a recent syslinux update (6.02->6.03pre9) I am not able > to use syslinux anymore. I try to boot my computer and the only thing > I see is "EDD Load error - Boot error" message. When I install 6.02 > back the system is completely

Op 2014-05-19 om 11:20 schreef Anatol Pomozov: > Hi > > I have a computer with BIOS and Linux Arch installed. > > Starting from a recent syslinux update (6.02->6.03pre9) I am not able > to use syslinux anymore. I try to boot my computer and the only thing > I see is "EDD Load error - Boot error" message. When I install 6.02 > back the system is completely

On May 19, 2014 5:17 PM, "Anatol Pomozov" <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com> wrote: > Besides syslinux itself other things has changed e.g. gcc (but I > really hope my problem not because of compiler). This alone can be the trigger.This might be a starting point: build 6.02 with your current toolchain. --Gene

On May 20, 2014 12:33 AM, "Anatol Pomozov" <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 19, 2014 5:17 PM, "Anatol Pomozov" <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Besides syslinux itself other things has changed e.g. gcc (but I >

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 > * -

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

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

> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 1:52 pm, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > > > Ok, we've figured out potential cause of the problem. The next > > question how to minimize the size of ldlinux.sys? > > > > BTW looking at official (?) binary > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/Testing/6.03/syslinux-6.03-pre11.tar.xz > > I see that their size is