On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 02:36:32PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 30.08.2008, 14:01 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
>
> > I think the idea with this was to unify the strings for grub_dprintf calls;
> > your patch goes a bit further and also puts other sort of strings to share
> > the same variable.
> >
> > I think that's a bit dangerous, since changes intended for one use of the
> > variable could collaterally affect the rest in subtle ways. And it's not
> > that useful in code size anyway.
>
> Oh right, but then modname seems to be a bit the wrong name,
> if it should ony be used for grub_dprintf.
> For example the i386-pc biosdisc.c uses grub_dprintf("disk") and
> partmap/pc.c uses "partition"
>
> What about moddebugname or something like that then?
grub_dprintf itself refers to that as "condition". I'd personally prefer
"channel" though. What do others think?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
