Commited
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko <
phco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Warning fixed in the patch. If nobody objects I commit it tomorrow
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:40 AM, John Stanley wrote:
>
>> The way it looks to me is that preboot_func is the function to
Warning fixed in the patch. If nobody objects I commit it tomorrow
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:40 AM, John Stanley wrote:
> The way it looks to me is that preboot_func is the function to be executed
> a preboot time, whereas preboot_rest_func is a cleanup function to be
> called to "restore" thin
The way it looks to me is that preboot_func is the function to be
executed a preboot time, whereas preboot_rest_func is a cleanup
function to be called to "restore" things to the pre-preboot_func state.
Something like this anyway.. its not yet real clear to me either.
phcoder wrote:
Yoshinor
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
- I don't understand how preboot_func and preboot_rest_func are different. At
least, not obvious. Can you elaborate on them?
preboot_rest_func is a function which should undo any action taken by
preboot_func. It's used if either loader aborts due to an error or
return
On Monday 13 April 2009 02:19:07 phcoder wrote:
> What about this one?
- ChangeLog, loader.h and loader.c are not consistent. For example, loader.h
declares grub_loader_unregister_preboot_hook, but loader.c defines
grub_loader_remove_preboot.
- I don't understand how preboot_func and preboot_re
What about this one?
phcoder wrote:
- Using an int value for the priority is quetionable. Very often, this
style of priority system leads to chaos, because everyone picks up
arbitrary numbers randomly. I prefer to define enums with a careful
analysis.
I will think about it. But the analysis is
- Using an int value for the priority is quetionable. Very often, this style
of priority system leads to chaos, because everyone picks up arbitrary
numbers randomly. I prefer to define enums with a careful analysis.
I will think about it. But the analysis is difficult because we don't
know in ad
On Saturday 11 April 2009 08:48:07 phcoder wrote:
> Hello, here is the preboot hooks support. Apply on top of my bootmove
> patch. They are very useful for patches like sendkey (my old patch that
> I'll rediff), badram, acpi (2 patches in separate threads) or drivemap
Some comments about the desig
Hello, here is the preboot hooks support. Apply on top of my bootmove
patch. They are very useful for patches like sendkey (my old patch that
I'll rediff), badram, acpi (2 patches in separate threads) or drivemap
--
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index
