Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:53:23PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote: >> >Ah, and why 0xcf instead of 0xff ? >> > >> > >> >> ... or 0xaa or 0x55. > > 0xaa and 0x55 are typicaly used directly in memory because every bit is > negated, which is precisely what `^ 0xff' would do.
Robert, can you take care of this patch? You have more expertise with this than I do :-) -- Marco _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
