On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:31:14PM +0900, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Saturday 28 March 2009 22:13:06 Robert Millan wrote: > > Do we need the memory map to be sorted? AFAIK loadees can cope with > > unsorted maps fine; is there an exception? > > As I wrote in the draft, a boot loader should sort the memory map. An OS > image > must deal with an unsorted memory map, because the wording is "should", but > it is still user-friendly (especially for debugging).
You mean the multiboot 2 draft? Since this change is backward-compatible, is there any reason we want this in multiboot 2 but not in multiboot 1? I don't like that the two diverge so much, it makes the implementation so much harder to maintain. Right now the multiboot 2 loader is a complete bitrot. Can we merge this and similar backward-compatible changes into multiboot 1? -- 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
