On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:42:52PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 09:53:54AM +0000, Michael Chang wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:00:50PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:52:35PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 11:15:04AM -0800, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko > > > > wrote: > > > > > Please don't do it this way. The right solution is to move it to > > > > > separate > > > > > module and include zstd module when needed. Not everybody uses btrfs > > > > > embedded area. I recommend not to use it. Using mbr gap or BBP is the > > > > > recommended way. > > > > > > > > I will put the cat among the pigeons. Maybe we should finally stop > > > > pretending that the GRUB supports small MBR gaps. Otherwise we will > > > > be fighting with such issues endlessly. > > > > > > Bumping the thread... Nobody objects? Hmmm... > > > > I don't think we are able to give up MBR gap support, simply because no > > other way out in creating the area for bootloader embedding. However we > > Nope, I do not propose that... > > > should consider to correct this claim in manual. > > > > "You must ensure that the first partition starts at least 31 KiB (63 > > sectors) from the start of the disk" > > > > to reflect the fact that 31 KiB is no longer applicable and the ideal > > size should be above 1MB (or such). You should go check with your disk > > tools to find the suitable parameter to fulfill the requirement, for eg, > > the partition alignment would mostly affect this. > > Exactly! However, there are some legacy systems which do not boot if MBR > gap does not end at 63 sectors boundary. Hence, maybe we should suggest > chainloading, using e.g. SYSLINUX, in a such cases. Anyway, may I ask > you to prepare a patch for GRUB manual which describes the problem?
Alright, sounds good to me. :) Regards, Michael > > Daniel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
