Syslinux - May 2014 - "EDD Load error" on btrfs, patch committed

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 possible reasons:
> >  *  - the first 64k blank is useful for some boot loader/manager
> >  *  - the first 1M could be scratched by buggy partitioner or somesuch
> >  */
> > #define BTRFS_BLOCK_RESERVED_1M_FOR_SUPER	((u64)1024 * 1024)
> > "
> > 
> > 1MiB seems to be a reasonable size to fit bootsector + LDLINUX.SYS in.
I
> > don't know exactly how Syslinux is handling this, but it should be
using
> > the whole available space (1MiB instead).
> > 
> 
> 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 git.

Is that ready for testing?

> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg34117.html


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Leven en laten leven

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 git.
Not the btrfs branch, on the main branch.

> Is that ready for testing?
I  think it is


Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Leven en laten leven

On 05/21/2014 01:09 AM, Geert Stappers wrote:
> 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 git.
> 
> Not the btrfs branch, on the main branch.
> 
> 
>> Is that ready for testing?
> 
> I  think it is
> 
Yes it is.  Chris Mason got back to me.  However, I'm still having
problems with my test scripts, so something is still wonky.

	-hpa