[syslinux] [PATCH] Fix recognition of keeppxe option

Ady
2016-06-15T17:02:19Z

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at
zytor.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > kernel.c:new_linux_kernel() to load_linux.c:bios_boot_linux()
because
> >> > there is no convenient way in new_linux_kernel() to control
the boot
> >> > flags value.
> >>
> >> This is the part that has me questioning things and trying to
recall
> >> if any other KERNEL-like directives ever utilize keeppxe.
> >>
> >
> > @Gene,
> >
> > Not being a developer myself, I don't understand this "other
> > KERNEL-like directives" sentence. I do know what
"kernel-like
>
> Those directives which acts like KERNEL, specifying a binary to
> execute.  BOOT BSS COM32 COMBOOT CONFIG FDIMAGE LINUX LOCALBOOT PXE.
>
> > directives" means, but I do not know which one is the one you are
> > referring to here, and why "_other_ KERNEL-like directives"
would be a
>
> I'm referring to all of the above collectively.
>
> > concern. I mean, other than the behavior regarding file name
> > extensions, shouldn't the KERNEL-like directives relevant in this
case
> > be equivalent to each other? (FWIW, I say "relevant" because
I am
> > assuming that the "CONFIG" and the "LOCALBOOT"
directives are not so
> > relevant in this context; are they?).
>
> KERNEL guesses what the proper loading method is and should generally
> be avoided.  A few years back, a distribution had a kernel that ended
> in ".0" while using KERNEL resulting in PXE behavior instead of
LINUX.
>

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my question.

As I said, I _do_ know what "KERNEL-like directives" means, which ones
they are, and their behavior regarding file name extensions.

The part that I did _not_ understand is (other than not being able to
understand the code itself, since I am not a dev.):

"...if any other KERNEL-like directives ever utilize keeppxe."

When you wrote "any other..." I took it as "there is (at least)
_one_
kernel-like directive that is related or used or mentioned in the code
you were referring to, and then there are _other_ kernel-like
directives that were not explicitly related / used / mentioned in the
code, and that you were not sure whether any (one) of these _other_
kernel-like directives ever use / parse keeppxe (too).

So my thought (or my understanding from your wording) was that there
seems to be possible that one kernel-like directive might have one
behavior (or capabilities) regarding keeppxe and other kernel-like
directives might behave differently than the first one. If my
interpretation (of your wording) were to be correct, then it would
imply that there are differences between some kernel-like directives
(other than the different behaviors regarding file name extensions). If
such different behavior (in response or in relation to using the
keeppxe option) exists in some kernel-like directives, I wasn't aware
of it and your sentence confused me.

I was asking for clarification, because my aforementioned
interpretation of your words seems to be contradicting my prior
understanding of kernel-like directives.

Hopefully, this email clarifies my question.

TIA,
Ady.

PS: Considering that linux.c32 is based on the LINUX directive (which
is a kernel-like directive) with some additions, perhaps linux.c32
should (also) get the capability of parsing / using keeppxe?