Re: [patch] 64 bit disk address support (= 8192EiB disks)

2005-10-21 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Saturday 22 October 2005 01:46 am, Timothy Baldwin wrote: > > I think it is better to define grub_off_t as grub_uint64_t, and use > > grub_off_t. > > Misleading as POSIX uses off_t as a byte offset. Also grub_off_t would be > logical type name for file offsets, which should use a separate type t

Re: [patch] 64 bit disk address support (= 8192EiB disks)

2005-10-21 Thread Timothy Baldwin
On Friday 21 Oct 2005 23:24, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Saturday 22 October 2005 12:18 am, Marco Gerards wrote: > > > * include/grub/types.h (grub_lba_t): New typedef. > > > > Why did you choose this name? LBA as an abbreviation of logical block address is in common use. And makes it clear

Re: [patch] 64 bit disk address support (= 8192EiB disks)

2005-10-21 Thread Marco Gerards
"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 22 October 2005 12:18 am, Marco Gerards wrote: >> >* include/grub/types.h (grub_lba_t): New typedef. >> >> Why did you choose this name? What about using grub_sector_t instead >> as name? > > I think it is better to define grub_of

Fancy command line parsing

2005-10-21 Thread Marco Gerards
Hi, At the moment I am working on a patch to fix two (related) bugs. One bug is that tab completion does not escape spaces, the other is that it does not take quotes into consideration. What I did is rewriting grub_split_cmdline. There are some helper functions which make handling the command l

Re: [patch] 64 bit disk address support (= 8192EiB disks)

2005-10-21 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Saturday 22 October 2005 12:18 am, Marco Gerards wrote: > > * include/grub/types.h (grub_lba_t): New typedef. > > Why did you choose this name? What about using grub_sector_t instead > as name? I think it is better to define grub_off_t as grub_uint64_t, and use grub_off_t. Okuji __

Re: grub-setup: --no-boot option?

2005-10-21 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Friday 21 October 2005 11:36 pm, Paul Bolle wrote: > I already tried. But launching the GRUB image grub-mkimage generated > (b.t.w. using the exact command grub-install uses) dropped me to rescue > mode. The image grub-mkimage generated isn't exactly equal to the image > generated by grub-instal

ls and grub_vsprintf bug fixes.

2005-10-21 Thread Timothy Baldwin
Normal mode ls leaks disk handles because it doesn't close files properly. grub_vsprintf doesn't terminate a string it passes to grub_strtoul. Fixes below: 2005-10-21 Timothy Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * commands/ls.c (grub_ls_list_files) : Close file with grub_file_close.

Re: [patch] 64 bit disk address support (= 8192EiB disks)

2005-10-21 Thread Marco Gerards
Timothy Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Only 16EiB on RISC OS, openfirmware and grub-emu. > > The Linux block device code in util/biosdisk.c still needs fixing or > removing. > I am working on a rewrite of the i386 boot sector code which supports 64bit > disk addresses and understands pa

Re: Wiki

2005-10-21 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Friday 21 October 2005 06:04 pm, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > Anyway, we will migrate to another host. I hope I will have time to set it > up in this weekend. I have done right now. This is the new one: http://grub.enbug.org/ Okuji ___ Grub-devel m

Re: grub-setup: --no-boot option?

2005-10-21 Thread Paul Bolle
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 22:18 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Friday 21 October 2005 09:38 pm, Paul Bolle wrote: > > 2) If there are no (serious) side effects, would it be an idea to add an > > "--no-boot" option to grub-setup? [...] > > In this case, you can invoke grub-mkimage directly. I

Re: grub-setup: --no-boot option?

2005-10-21 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Friday 21 October 2005 09:38 pm, Paul Bolle wrote: > 1) Both these commands (entered at the GRUB 0.95 command line) will get > me the GRUB 1.91 prompt : > - kernel (hd0,2)/boot/grub/core.img >boot > - chainload (hd0,2)+1 >boot > > Am I correct in thinking these commands are essentially

grub-setup: --no-boot option?

2005-10-21 Thread Paul Bolle
0) I've been playing with GRUB 1.91. Not wanting to risk my MBR I put GRUB 1.91 into the boot sector of a partition (hd0,2 actually). 1) Both these commands (entered at the GRUB 0.95 command line) will get me the GRUB 1.91 prompt : - kernel (hd0,2)/boot/grub/core.img boot - chainload (hd0,2)+

Re: Wiki

2005-10-21 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Friday 21 October 2005 04:45 pm, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Oct 17, 2005, at 3:25 AM, Marco Gerards wrote: > > The GRUB wiki is down. We talked a bit about moving the wiki on IRC. > > Did someone find a good host for the wiki already? > > > > Another problem is the data, is it still available

Re: Wiki

2005-10-21 Thread Hollis Blanchard
On Oct 17, 2005, at 3:25 AM, Marco Gerards wrote: The GRUB wiki is down. We talked a bit about moving the wiki on IRC. Did someone find a good host for the wiki already? Another problem is the data, is it still available some way so we can restore the wiki if we found a new host? It appears

[patch] 64 bit disk address support (= 8192EiB disks)

2005-10-21 Thread Timothy Baldwin
Only 16EiB on RISC OS, openfirmware and grub-emu. The Linux block device code in util/biosdisk.c still needs fixing or removing. I am working on a rewrite of the i386 boot sector code which supports 64bit disk addresses and understands partition tables (PC and GPT) and some filesystems (maybe