On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 08:01:01PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:24:39PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' > Serbinenko wrote: > > Felix Zielcke wrote: > > > grub_halt is on i386-pc defined as `void grub_halt (int no_apm)' but > > > everywhere else as `grub_halt (void)' > > > util/grub-emu.c has a #ifdef for these 2 > > > > > > Shouldn't we just add an int parameter everywhere to make this more > > > simple? > > > > > > > > I think in future we'll have more different halt methods on different > > platforms. So we could do: > > grub_halt (int methods) > > And have e.g. > > GRUB_HALT_DEFAULT_METHODS > > And e.g. on i386: > > #define GRUB_HALT_DEFAULT_METHODS > > (GRUB_HALT_APM|GRUB_HALT_ACPI|GRUB_HALT_HANG) > > I was hoping we could remove complexity rather than add more of it. > > Why would higher layer (who's just calling grub_halt because it wants the > system to shutdown) want to know about things like APM or ACPI ?
Well, for now I just unified the headers but kept the current i386-pc function parameters. This restores experimental to a buildable state. -- 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
