On Saturday 31 May 2008 17:21:25 Robert Millan wrote:
> 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).
"boot" is used for a command, so it is very confusing to use the same name for
a variable. If you want to have this kind of variable, please find another
name. I myself have no idea.
Okuji
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
