similar to: [RFC/PATCH 3/3] Wire up MultiFS support.

So last week I was wondering if XFS was still working -- even with its last on-disk structure changes -- and it _suprisingly_ worked as expected. Right, now I can finally get rid of GRUB and use Syslinux to boot my Linux on EFI from a rootfs with xfs. Shit, I have two partitions (the first one being the required ESP) so there is no way to access the other partitions since because Syslinux does not

From: Raphael S. Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> MULTIFS SYNTAX: (hd[disk number]:[partition number])/path/to/file The meaning of this_fs was changed to improve the flexibility of the support. Now, this_fs means the file system being currently used. root_fs was created to save the context of the main file system (where ldlinux.sys lives in). get_fs_info is a function pointer that

From: Raphael S. Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> Most of file system drivers initialize the cache themselves. The problem is that the same cache could be again initialized later, then invalidating the previous one. This patch fixes this. Problem found while auditing the code. Signed-off-by: Raphael S. Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> --- core/fs/cache.c | 2 ++

On 07.04.2016 19:28, Tal Lubko via Syslinux wrote: > Hello Everyone > > > > Sometime ago there was some discussion about Syslinux multifs support. > > I've tested it for some time using qemu and it seems to be working. > > Lately I've started testing it with my real hardware and for some reason it > doesn't work. > > > > I don't

Hello Everyone Sometime ago there was some discussion about Syslinux multifs support. I've tested it for some time using qemu and it seems to be working. Lately I've started testing it with my real hardware and for some reason it doesn't work. I don't really know how to debug Syslinux (aside from using printf), so what I've succeeded to discover with is that the

On 20.12.2015 09:55, poma wrote: > ... > > Syslinux MultiFS test: > > - QEMU/KVM SeaBIOS: PASSED > - Bare-metal BIOS: FAILED [1] > - OVMF: FAILED [2] > - Bare-metal UEFI: not tested > > > [1] stalled: > Loading (hd3,2)/vmlinuz-4.3.2-200.fc22.x86_64... > > > [2] "failed: No such file or directory" > >

Ady, Peter, et al. On Fri, July 24, 2015 5:28 pm, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > >> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote: >> >> >> > My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally >> > improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should >> not* be >> > a reason to block this patchset.

> If I understand the syntax correct, it is: > (hdX,Y)/path/to/file", where X is disk number and Y is partition number. > As far as I understand X and Y are zero based. > > I've tested it with qemu and 2 disks: > - the first with bootloader > - the second with kernel+rootfs > > I've used the following configuration file label: > > label MULTIFS >

... Syslinux MultiFS test: - QEMU/KVM SeaBIOS: PASSED - Bare-metal BIOS: FAILED [1] - OVMF: FAILED [2] - Bare-metal UEFI: not tested [1] stalled: Loading (hd3,2)/vmlinuz-4.3.2-200.fc22.x86_64... [2] "failed: No such file or directory" http://git.zytor.com/users/pcacjr/syslinux.git/tree/core/include/multifs.h?h=multifs-for-upstream#n27 * MULTIFS SYNTAX: * (hd[disk

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > > The MultiFS syntax is basically "(hdX,Y)/path/to/file", where X is disk > > number and Y is partition number. > > > > Thank you. > > As a reminder, please note: > > _ There was a syntax discussion about "multifs", so additional syntax > forms

Raphael, Except for the : instead of the , this looks like the grub hard disk nomenclature that's been around for a thousand years. Certainly since early GRUB1. Example: (hd0,0)/grub/splash.xpm.gz Why did you chose : instead of grub's , ? I'm guessing (like grub) that disks & partitions are 0-based? (Were the original grub authors European?) Spike #Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014

> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote: > >> > > My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally > > improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be > > a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this patchset > > should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some

MultiFS is a new feature that will turn the task of using multiple disks/partitions possible. By the way, it's not mainstream yet. It will only be available when the patches be released or get merged into the official tree. I'm currently working on the last details, thus it isn't yet available to the public. It was previously called Multidisk. But MultiFS seems to cover better both

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Raphael S Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: >> On 06/04/2014 11:09 AM, Raphael S Carvalho wrote: >>> Before proceeding with the MultiFS patchset, let's discuss the MultiFS syntax. >>> >>> It's currently as follows:

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: > It would be good to clean it up so out can be used for both. Just teach it that ) ends the parse. Sounds reasonable, I will do that! > > On June 4, 2014 2:06:22 PM PDT, Raphael S Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> wrote: >>On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Raphael S Carvalho

> The MultiFS syntax is basically "(hdX,Y)/path/to/file", where X is disk > number and Y is partition number. > Thank you. As a reminder, please note: _ There was a syntax discussion about "multifs", so additional syntax forms should be allowed too (please read the whole email thread): http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2014-June/022173.html Examples: __ Space

On 09/02/15 10:59, Gene Cumm via Syslinux wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin via Syslinux > <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: >> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote: >>>> >>> My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally >>> improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote: >>> >> My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally >> improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be >> a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really

It would be good to clean it up so out can be used for both. Just teach it that ) ends the parse. On June 4, 2014 2:06:22 PM PDT, Raphael S Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Raphael S Carvalho ><raphael.scarv at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: >>> On

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:50:24 +0200 Tal Lubko via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: poma [mailto:pomidorabelisima at gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 1:30 PM > > To: Tal Lubko; 'H. Peter Anvin'; 'Celelibi' > > Cc: 'For discussion of Syslinux and tftp-hpa' > > Subject: Re: