[syslinux] [PATCH] Fix recognition of keeppxe option

Ady ady-sf at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 15 10:02:19 PDT 2016

> 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
> > 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.


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?

More information about the Syslinux mailing list