Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/31/07, Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:19:32PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
>> >> Can you pass it around inside one of the structs? I understand that
>> >> passing it around as p
On 7/31/07, Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:19:32PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> >> Can you pass it around inside one of the structs? I understand that
> >> passing it around as parameter is not really nice. The problem
Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:19:32PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
>> Can you pass it around inside one of the structs? I understand that
>> passing it around as parameter is not really nice. The problem is
>> that this might actually break other code, which I want
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:19:32PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Can you pass it around inside one of the structs? I understand that
> passing it around as parameter is not really nice. The problem is
> that this might actually break other code, which I want to prevent. I
> hope you see this mig
Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:31:57PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
>> GRUB already has caching code, see kern/disk.c. So this just can
>> better be removed, to fix deallocation issues, etc.
>
> The caching is mainly for decompression. In NTFS, the basic decompressio
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:31:57PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> GRUB already has caching code, see kern/disk.c. So this just can
> better be removed, to fix deallocation issues, etc.
The caching is mainly for decompression. In NTFS, the basic decompression unit
is 4096 bytes. If we don't cache t
Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:18:23PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
>> Was this patch tested on both 32 and 64 bits machines? And little/big
>> endian machines? Perhaps other people can help Bean if he doesn't
>> have access to such machines?
>
> I only test it in 3
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:18:23PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Was this patch tested on both 32 and 64 bits machines? And little/big
> endian machines? Perhaps other people can help Bean if he doesn't
> have access to such machines?
I only test it in 32-bit x86 machines, please report bug if i
