On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:43, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 21:15 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > On Saturday 28 October 2006 20:32, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > > Are you saying that given tag->key == foo, tag->length == sizeof(struct > > > tag_foo)? I think it makes far more sense to allow 'length' to be > > > independent of 'key', and that means we don't need this 'reserved' > > > stuff. > > > > 'length' is sometimes somehow independent. When passing data whose size > > is variable, 'length' specifies the size. The size of an item is > > indirectly defined by 'length'. The size of an item can be different from > > the size of data, because of a padding for an alignment. > > That definition doesn't take advantage of the flexibility 'length' could > give us. We should be able to use arbitrary values for 'length', even > when the tag structure size is well-defined. There is no reason not > to...
Right. Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
