On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 17:01 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Pavel Roskin <pro...@gnu.org> wrote: > > I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were opposed to the patch. I assumed > > that you just wanted to make some improvements. Nobody was against the > > drivemap command in principle. The discussion was about minor details. > Ok. Sorry for my harsh reaction. Now I'm under a lot of stress.
No problem. > > I'm fine with the change from "const void" to "const char", but we need > > to remove a preceding comment about void labels. > It's not that I'm opposed to void in principle. Just using the same > constructions to do the same things in different files makes code > easier to learn and port I wonder if we can go the other way and use void for all labels without storage. Indeed, it's too easy to misuse a char variable by forgetting the ampersand before it. > > As for the parse_biosdisk() change, I'd like to see an explanation. > The explanation is that if user uses ata or usbms code and code calls > biosdisk, BIOS may issue a command which may conflict with ata/usbms. > Unfortunately it's not a scenario we're able to circumvent (BIOS is > headache) so I prefer to err on a safe side I agree that we should avoid touching the hardware. Besides, after loading ata we may not see some drives that BIOS can see. Validation of user input is good, but only if it's implemented correctly. Another approach may be to use biosdisk calls only if biosdisk is active. Otherwise, trust the user and turn off validation. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
