On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 10:52:56AM +0100, Mate Kukri wrote:
> Users have no reason to see this, and it can break graphical boot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mate Kukri
Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper
Daniel
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lis
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 11:52:02AM +0100, Mate Kukri wrote:
> Users have no reason to see this without explictily asking for it, and
Users do not have any option to ask for it. Why do not use grub_dprintf("efi",
...)
instead of grub_printf()?
Daniel
> it can break graphical boot.
>
> Signed-off
I didn't see a reason to ever see this either, hence I added no
dprintf (also i think "loader" isn't an existing dprintf name, and I
try to avoid introducing those as much as I can).
By "explicitly asking for", I was thinking of the ability to simply
print the path in the config (which admittedly
On 8/2/24 12:52, Mate Kukri wrote:
Users have no reason to see this without explicitly asking for it, and
it can break graphical boot.
If you wanted users to be able to explicitly ask for the the output, you
could use:
grub_dprintf ("loader", ...)
'set debug=loader' then would provide t
