similar to: [PATCH] Call ExitBootServices twice

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:54 PM, celelibi--- via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > > Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called > twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. > > Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > --- > efi/main.c | 75

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Celelibi <celelibi at gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-11-02 12:34 UTC+01:00, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:54 PM, celelibi--- via Syslinux >> <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: >>> From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >>> >>> Some firmware implementations may need

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:54:04 +0200 celelibi--- via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > > Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called > twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. > > Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > --- > efi/main.c |

Sometimes the UEFI memory map changes between GetMemoryMap() and ExitBootServices(), making the MapKey value incorrect. Per the UEFI spec, the memory map should then be fetched again and exiting retried. Signed-off-by: Tom Huibregtse <thuibregtse at xes-inc.com> --- efi/main.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

2015-11-02 12:34 UTC+01:00, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:54 PM, celelibi--- via Syslinux > <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: >> From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >> >> Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called >> twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. >>

2015-11-03 11:24 UTC+01:00, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com>: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Celelibi <celelibi at gmail.com> wrote: >> 2015-11-02 12:34 UTC+01:00, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com>: >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:54 PM, celelibi--- via Syslinux >>> <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: >>>> From: Sylvain Gault

From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> Some firmware implementations may need ExitBootServices to be called twice. The second time with an updated memory map key. Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> --- efi/main.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git

I am a UEFI/BIOS developer. We UEFI PXE boot dozens of times per night. We have run into this error more than a couple of times. We have also done thousands of UEFI PXE boots with debug statements to prove that the patch works. From: "Tom Huibregtse via Syslinux" <syslinux at syslinux.org> To: syslinux at syslinux.org Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 8:04:06 AM Subject:

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Celelibi <celelibi at gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-11-03 11:24 UTC+01:00, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com>: >>> So, why not try a memory allocation anyway? It works on some >>> implementations (including mine) despite being forbidden by the >>> specification, but we're in this situation because the firmware was

Hello, I'm booting linux-3.16-686-pae kernel (32-bit) via syslinux.efi 64-bit version. After boot linux sees only 2.5G of RAM while system has 32G installed. If I boot the same kernel with GRUB64 efi instead of syslinux then amount of RAM available to linux is 32G. Is this a bug or I'm missing something? syslinux.cfg: label live-686-pae menu label Linux (686-pae) menu

From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> I don't know if I should merge those trivial warning fix into one commit. I can reformat it as requested. Those are a few warning fixes for the efi part. The code involved has mainly been introduced in recent commits. Sylvain Gault (3): efi: fix warnings about argument types efi: fix pointer-type mismatch assigment warning efi: fix

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

Good day, Geoff. On 2024-12-02 03:22, Geoff Winkless wrote: > [...] > > I tried (a truncated version of) your instructions with my kernel and > it boots fine under qemu. Sadly that same kernel will not boot on my > real hardware (an ASRock N100-based board). > Just to confirm, are these 2 points all true?: 1. On the "ASRock N100-based board," your

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,

On Fri, 2016-12-23 at 08:43 -0500, Gene Cumm via Syslinux wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Robin Mathews (robimath) via > Syslinux > <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Folks , > > > > Can you please let me know if there is any fix for chain > > loading??UEFI boot loader using chain.c32??in 6.04 release ? > > I am booting my

Hi all, I'm terribly sorry that I cannot follow emails in my gmail inbox, since gmail is blocked by China govement, as many of you may have already known. I'm a HP employee in China and we are going through the splitting process, so the blade server I was using were packed up and should be moved into a new room. I will try the latest source if possible. Thank you very much for your works.

>>> Jeff, Patrick: Could you try my code from my github repo branch efi-multinic?? It's derived from Patrick's code and I finally see good responses with a VMware VM's e1000e NIC (never saw ANYTHING good from it until now). git://github.com/geneC/syslinux.git https://github.com/geneC/syslinux.git -- -Gene <<< Hi there I think in the case of a particular

Hi all, I added support for the allocsize function attribute to our compiler (LDC), thinking that that would enable removal of function calls when the allocated memory is not used. For example: ``` declare i8* @my_malloc(i32) allocsize(0) define void @test_malloc() { %1 = call i8* @my_malloc(i32 100) ret void } ``` I thought the my_alloc call in test_malloc would be removed, but `opt -O3`

Hi all, consider the following function from Core.cpp in LLVM 9.0.0: LLVMValueRef LLVMBuildMalloc(LLVMBuilderRef B, LLVMTypeRef Ty, const char *Name) { Type* ITy = Type::getInt32Ty(unwrap(B)->GetInsertBlock()->getContext()); Constant* AllocSize = ConstantExpr::getSizeOf(unwrap(Ty)); AllocSize = ConstantExpr::getTruncOrBitCast(AllocSize, ITy);

From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> I found something suspicious while hunting another bug a while ago. The conditions for that bug to occur seems quite hard to meet, but it's still code quality improvement. See the commit message for details. Sylvain Gault (1): efi: Suspicious size reduction in emalloc efi/main.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3