On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:09:50PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think the method is sound; what I'm complaining about (and it's not
> > something specific to your patch) is that we're referring to two different
> > things by the same name ("root"), and even put them in the same variable.
> >
> > In the initialization phase, "root" is the device that contains our GRUB
> > directory.
> >
> > Afterwards, "root" is the device we're currently accessing (be it for
> > loading
> > fonts, backgrounds, Linux images, whatever).
> >
> > If "root" means "just a placeholder for whatever device we're acessing at
> > the
> > moment", then it would make sense, but in our code (i.e. in the names we're
> > giving to commands and functions) it's assumed to mean "the device
> > containing
> > /boot/grub".
> >
> > So what do we want to do with this? Should we have different variables for
> > each thing (and in that case, is "root" for initial stage or for grub.cfg)
> > or should we use "root" as a placeholder for any path reference, and adjust
> > our function names etc to reflect that?
>
> root is used in loaders as well, we shouldn't change its name. We
> could use another variable to store the root device at initial stage,
> it could actually be useful as it always points to the boot media.
> Perhaps we can name it "boot". What's your idea ?
I'm fine with "boot". I'm CCing Okuji; would like to make sure he doesn't
have any objections (I think it was he who gave it this layout).
--
Robert Millan
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
