Jun OKAJIMA wrote:
> Why you dont use kexec() but grub?
Just a comment from my point of view.
Perhaps, you live in a happy world, Linux on IA-32, or something where
all the functionalities are available *already*.
To run kexec successfully, we need working Linux beforehand. FWIW,
we are develop
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 16:06 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 December 2005 09:08 am, Peter Jones wrote:
> > That's taking the very unrealistic point of view that using nested
> > functions isn't broken. It is, in a great many ways which have already
> > been discussed in depth, a
>
>FWIW, I developed a boot loader for M32R architecture which supports
>HTTP download: http://www.gniibe.org/software/m32r-g00ff-20060107.tar.gz
>
Dont get me wrong if my question is wrong --- I dont know about
grub developmet so much. But, I have one question.
Why you dont use kexec() but gr
Marco Gerards wrote:
> Things I planned to do:
>
> - Finish IPv4+UDP receive.
> - Implement DHCP/BOOTP.
> - Clean up the code a bit and document everything properly.
> - Add IEEE 1275 support (so networking will work on the PPC and
> SPARC).
> - Implement TFTP.
FWIW, I developed a boot loader fo
On Wednesday 28 December 2005 09:08 am, Peter Jones wrote:
> That's taking the very unrealistic point of view that using nested
> functions isn't broken. It is, in a great many ways which have already
> been discussed in depth, and which you've, rather disturbingly, chosen
> to ignore. Using "fea
