On Wednesday 01 April 2009 21:57:55 Robert Millan wrote: > 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?
No. > 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? I agree. Regards, Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
