> On 18 Jan 2019, at 21:33, Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd-rwg_at_pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > >> >> >>> On 18 Jan 2019, at 19:57, Lev Serebryakov <lev_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 18.01.2019 20:13, Warner Losh wrote: >>> >>>>> Also, there are same problems with GPT/BIOS setup (which uses GPT but >>>>> legacy boot) :-( >>>>> >>>> >>>> What same problems? I don't think we've touched how gptboot has handed off >>>> to /boot/loader in a long, long time. It there's an issue here, it's a >>>> different issue. >>> Ok, strictly speaking it is different issue with same "high-level" >>> description: pmbr/gptboot has less features than simplest oldest boot0. >>> >>> pmbr/gptbood doesn't have any way to select partition to boot from, as >>> "boot0" has. No, setting "nextboot" from live system is not a solution. >>> I speak about NanoBSD situation when there is tow partitions, both >>> bootable, one marked as "active" ("bootme" on GPT parlance) but it is >>> completely broken and user need to boot from other one form very >>> beginning. This task is trivially solved by "boot0" in pure-MBR case. >>> What about GPT/Legacy and GPT/UEFI? >>> >>> -- >>> // Lev Serebryakov >>> >> >> errm.. you press a key and enter device and or loader path. if it is not working - the code is there to be fixed. >> GPT does not have the concept of active partition. > > It certainly does, it is called the attribute bootme, > and the above correctly states that. > Shall you give the reference to specification?:) I am very well aware about the “vendor” attributes, and I guess You can make a difference about vendor extensions and specification… And regarding to GPT attributes, I personally would avoid writing partition table from the boot loader… rgds, toomasReceived on Fri Jan 18 2019 - 18:42:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:20 UTC