Le ven. 4 avr. 2025, 00:25, khaliid caliy <khaliidca...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Well i apologies the error message were somehow bad on my previous
> patch, and needed some improvement.
>
> diff --git a/grub-core/loader/efi/chainloader.c
> b/grub-core/loader/efi/chainloader.c
> index 869307bf3..4fd46dfda 100644
> --- a/grub-core/loader/efi/chainloader.c
> +++ b/grub-core/loader/efi/chainloader.c
> @@ -346,6 +346,12 @@ grub_cmd_chainloader (grub_command_t cmd
> __attribute__ ((unused)),
> {
> if (status == GRUB_EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES)
> grub_error (GRUB_ERR_OUT_OF_MEMORY, "out of resources");
> + else if (status == GRUB_EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER)
> + grub_error (GRUB_ERR_BAD_ARGUMENT, "the image supplied
> paramters are invalid");
>
Typo
> + else if (status == GRUB_EFI_NOT_FOUND)
> + grub_error (GRUB_ERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, "the image not found");
> + else if (status == GRUB_EFI_UNSUPPORTED)
> + grub_error (GRUB_ERR_BAD_OS, "grub doesn't support this image");
>
This has nothing to do with what GRUB supports. It's about what firmware
supports.
How did you choose which error codes to translate? Did you actually see
them? Are those distinctions useful without knowing EFI spec? Maybe it's
better to just print EFI error in hex?
> else
> grub_error (GRUB_ERR_BAD_OS, "cannot load image");
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
