On Friday 28 Oct 2005 04:01, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 22 October 2005 01:53 pm, Timothy Baldwin wrote:
> > That is exactly my point. POSIX uses off_t as a byte counts into files,
> > the type we are discussing the name of is used for sector counts.
>
> OK. That makes sense.
>
> Howev
On Saturday 22 October 2005 01:53 pm, Timothy Baldwin wrote:
> That is exactly my point. POSIX uses off_t as a byte counts into files, the
> type we are discussing the name of is used for sector counts.
OK. That makes sense.
However, I do not like grub_sector_t. For me, this is still an address o
On Monday 24 Oct 2005 11:26, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Timothy Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I still have to look at the RISC OS patches you sent in so far. I
> >> hope you can still wait a bit, my own hacking already consumes all
> >> time I have... :-/. Sorry for this very long delay.
>
Timothy Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I still have to look at the RISC OS patches you sent in so far. I
>> hope you can still wait a bit, my own hacking already consumes all
>> time I have... :-/. Sorry for this very long delay.
>
> I've merged some bug fixes into the patches they corre
On Friday 21 Oct 2005 23:18, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Why did you choose this name? What about using grub_sector_t instead
> as name?
I now see Linux uses sector_t.
Revised patch using grub_sector_t and definition higher up types.h:
http://www.majoroak.f2s.com/tim/grub/patches/grub2-patch14b.diff
On Saturday 22 Oct 2005 01:06, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 22 October 2005 01:46 am, Timothy Baldwin wrote:
> > 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 to
> > aid changing it.
>
>
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
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
"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
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
__
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
