similar to: [syslinux:firmware] efi: there are no EFI installer components

On 07/12/2013 05:57 AM, syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming wrote: > Commit-ID: 7ab8f23aa2140951608544ed557f7529cf32d98d > Gitweb: http://www.syslinux.org/commit/7ab8f23aa2140951608544ed557f7529cf32d98d > Author: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > AuthorDate: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:47:22 +0100 > Committer: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> >

On 05/10/2013 06:27 AM, syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming wrote: > > diff --git a/efi/main.c b/efi/main.c > index 31f0bff..27e7f8f 100644 > --- a/efi/main.c > +++ b/efi/main.c > @@ -1177,13 +1177,10 @@ static void efi_setcwd(CHAR16 *dp) > > EFI_STATUS efi_main(EFI_HANDLE image, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *table) > { > + EFI_PXE_BASE_CODE *pxe; > EFI_LOADED_IMAGE *info;

On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 07:43 -0400, Gene Cumm wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:39 AM, syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming > <matt.fleming at intel.com> wrote: > > Commit-ID: fe283b78c973268f2d1f0309826ceeb5c9e8978d > > Gitweb: http://www.syslinux.org/commit/fe283b78c973268f2d1f0309826ceeb5c9e8978d > > Author: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > >

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:39 AM, syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> wrote: > Commit-ID: fe283b78c973268f2d1f0309826ceeb5c9e8978d > Gitweb: http://www.syslinux.org/commit/fe283b78c973268f2d1f0309826ceeb5c9e8978d > Author: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > AuthorDate: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:54:09 +0000 > Committer: Matt Fleming

On 05/16/2013 03:18 AM, syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming wrote: > Commit-ID: 2bd94fb6ed5f7f7472319cd6adaa25ccf9819230 > Gitweb: http://www.syslinux.org/commit/2bd94fb6ed5f7f7472319cd6adaa25ccf9819230 > Author: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > AuthorDate: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:16:17 +0100 > Committer: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> >

On 01/07/2013 12:51 PM, syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming wrote: > Commit-ID: 15a67011987c341814533ac4d8e23c9a72dc7605 > Gitweb: http://www.syslinux.org/commit/15a67011987c341814533ac4d8e23c9a72dc7605 > Author: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > AuthorDate: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 14:42:16 +0000 > Committer: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > CommitDate:

From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> For x86_64 versions of gnu-efi >= 3.0s GNU_EFI_USE_MS_ABI is enabled which turns on the Microsoft ABI, allowing the compiler to do all the work of interfacing with the EFI firmware instead of jumping through uefi_call_wrapper(). Add support to turn this on in the gnu-efi headers, otherwise we'll encounter undefined references to

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> writes: > On 12/11/2013 11:52 AM, Geert Stappers wrote: > >> Op 2013-12-11 om 02:09 schreef syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming: >> >>> Commit-ID: 5e59ac11d6d105591d6da742750ea2f804534d43 >>> Gitweb: http://www.syslinux.org/commit/5e59ac11d6d105591d6da742750ea2f804534d43 >>> Author: Matt Fleming

On 08/01/2013 01:13 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > > I've got a patch to support LOCALBOOT -1 on EFI, which will boot the > next entry in the EFI Boot Manager (the thing configured with > efibootmgr), and which I'll commit shortly, but it doesn't support > LOCALBOOT 0. > > I'm not actually convinced that we should support LOCALBOOT 0 under EFI. > Even on BIOS,

So will the patch be applied in 6.02? Am 02.08.2013 17:30 schrieb "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com>: > Yes, I think so. The integer really means the same as EFI's > ExitBootServices. > > Matt Fleming <matt at console-pimps.org> wrote: > >On Fri, 02 Aug, at 07:50:57AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> I don't know if there is a meaningful

Op 2013-12-11 om 02:09 schreef syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming: > Commit-ID: 5e59ac11d6d105591d6da742750ea2f804534d43 > Gitweb: http://www.syslinux.org/commit/5e59ac11d6d105591d6da742750ea2f804534d43 > Author: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > AuthorDate: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:03:13 +0000 > Committer: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> >

Yes, I think so. The integer really means the same as EFI's ExitBootServices. Matt Fleming <matt at console-pimps.org> wrote: >On Fri, 02 Aug, at 07:50:57AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between "localboot >-1" >> and "localboot 0" on EFI... they are really two different ways to ask >> the BIOS

On Mon, 24 Jun, at 10:42:09AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jun, at 05:24:21PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > > Matt Fleming <matt at console-pimps.org> writes: > > > > > Please do test out the release and report any regressions. > > > > Unfortunately, I can't make it under Debian wheezy + experimental > > gnu-efi (ie. 3.0u+debian-1): > >

On 12/11/2013 11:52 AM, Geert Stappers wrote: > Op 2013-12-11 om 02:09 schreef syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming: >> Commit-ID: 5e59ac11d6d105591d6da742750ea2f804534d43 >> Gitweb: http://www.syslinux.org/commit/5e59ac11d6d105591d6da742750ea2f804534d43 >> Author: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> >> AuthorDate: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:03:13 +0000 >>

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: > On 11/24/2013 03:29 AM, Gene Cumm wrote: >>> >>> (Sorry for the top posting.) >> >> I just started examining this and find it odd that the core_udp_recv() >> doesn't zalloc() its token while core_udp_send()/core_udp_sendto() do. >> All three are a part of commit

On 07/26/2013 01:27 AM, syslinux-bot for Matt Fleming wrote: > diff --git a/com32/lib/syslinux/load_linux.c b/com32/lib/syslinux/load_linux.c > index 851d467..37c8df0 100644 > --- a/com32/lib/syslinux/load_linux.c > +++ b/com32/lib/syslinux/load_linux.c > @@ -125,10 +125,29 @@ static int map_initramfs(struct syslinux_movelist **fraglist, > } > > static size_t

On Fri, 02 Aug, at 07:50:57AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > I don't know if there is a meaningful difference between "localboot -1" > and "localboot 0" on EFI... they are really two different ways to ask > the BIOS to do the same thing. That's fine, it was just that I couldn't figure out what LOCALBOOT 0 should do on EFI. Should we just ignore the integer

On 11/24/2013 03:29 AM, Gene Cumm wrote: >> >> (Sorry for the top posting.) > > I just started examining this and find it odd that the core_udp_recv() > doesn't zalloc() its token while core_udp_send()/core_udp_sendto() do. > All three are a part of commit fe283b78 by Matt Fleming. Should this > be made into a zalloc() rather than pushing it into the stack?

So what about this topic? 2013/8/5 Jonas Keidel <jonas at jonas-keidel.de> > 2013/8/5 Matt Fleming <matt at console-pimps.org> > >> On Mon, 05 Aug, at 01:45:27PM, Jonas Keidel wrote: >> > I've tested it with the ASUS P9D-WS board. I installed Fedora 19 in >> > EFI-mode on SSD and booted after that in EFI-PXE with syslinux >> 6.02-pre16.

>>> > > Why promiscuous?? That seems to want to accept it on any local address > and put the NIC into promiscuous mode, avoiding the default MAC filter > in the NIC.? This should be uncessary as we're not capturinig. If I remember correctly, this was required for TFTP boot because otherwise it's impossible to accept DHCP packets when we have no IP address