[ipxe-devel] [1c838002] memtest86+.bin vs. memtest86.bin?
oneingray at gmail.com
Fri Aug 17 21:44:41 BST 2012
>>>>> Michael Brown writes:
>>>>> On Friday 17 Aug 2012 11:25:05 Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>> The advantage of using memtest.0 is that you can exit back to iPXE
>>> without rebooting,
>> This didn't work for me — hitting ESC in memtest86+.0 (f9d3679f3770,
>> running under QEMU/KVM) results in:
>> Could not boot: Error 0x00000002 (http://ipxe.org/00000002)
> That's expected behaviour. Exit codes from memtest.0 are:
> 0 : success
> 1 : at least one failure was observed
> 2 : a complete test was not performed
Indeed, a silly mistake on my part:
boot || exit 1
While it should've read something like:
# deal with the exit code here somehow?
>> While Memtest86+/PXE binary is a worthwhile addition, I'm still
>> interested in what exactly are the iPXE criteria the “stock”
>> Memtest86+ binary fails to meet? I'd like to try iPXE to bootstrap
>> other systems (such as FreeBSD), and it'd probably save me some time
>> if I'd know where to look should it fail.
> The motivation for creating memtest.0 was that the other memtest
> formats often don't work, for reasons that can't easily be fixed.
> For example, the default memtest.bin is an old-format zImage, which
> requires part of its code to be loaded at 0x90000. On many systems,
> this area of memory will already be occupied when loading via PXE.
ACK, thanks for the explanation.
… At the closer view, I don't seem to see any build options for
Memtest86+ other than the .bin and ELF formats (or what was
meant by “default memtest.bin” above?) and neither seems to boot
under iPXE (though the error codes are different — the one for
the ELF image is 0x2e018001, which corresponds to ENOEXEC in the
Also, it seems that the “plain” Memtest86 uses the same format
as Memtest86+, but is perfectly bootable under iPXE.
Apparently, I miss some fine point here…
FSF associate member #7257 http://sf-day.org/
More information about the ipxe-devel