Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:04:34AM +0800, Bean wrote: >> On Jan 25, 2008 12:55 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 03:25:51PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: >> > > >> > > You want to add a feature that only works when you have the ability to >> > > load >> > > images of an arbitrary size. However, if we had this ability we >> > > wouldn't have >> > > to compress core.img, or make it small in the first place. We would then >> > > just create core.img of an arbitrary size, and include a memdisk of an >> > > arbitrary size in it. But then we wouldn't need a feature to work >> > > around the >> > > size restriction in memdisk! >> > >> > Just discussed it with Marco on IRC, and he said we could load core.img in >> > high >> > memory, like in 0x100000 right away. This solves the size limit in memdisk >> > which I think is the source of the problem. >> > >> > Of course, this collides with the OS load area, so we'd also need to add >> > relocation in loader, as described in the "grub_dl_unload_all()" thread. I >> > do even have unfinished code for this, although it may take a while to get >> > it >> > done properly (maybe we need to add features to memory manager or so). >> > Does >> > this work for you? >> >> i think this is great, we don't have to worry about memdisk size, and >> no need for the initrd hack anymore. > > Ok. I'll send my patch to the list later (not as a proposal for commit, but > to > start a discussion on what is the right way to do it).
Great! This will solve many issues at once :-) Thanks to both of you! :-) -- Marco _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
