Committed.
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 12:45:20AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 06:16:06PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 01:45:30AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > >
> > > - What to do about physical_entry_addr now? My patch currently discards
> >
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 06:16:06PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 01:45:30AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > - What to do about physical_entry_addr now? My patch currently discards
> > it, which I suppose is not what we want.
>
> Fixed after some discussion with
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 01:45:30AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> - What to do about physical_entry_addr now? My patch currently discards
> it, which I suppose is not what we want.
Fixed after some discussion with Bean on IRC. This version of the patch
should handle physical_entry_addr f
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 09:15:10PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Let's try to revive this discussion. Here's a patch I made a while ago that
> implements support for loading at any address. It works by having a "special"
> version of malloc() that is told to allocate a chunk of memory that doe
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:39:49PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:09:02AM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > > IIRC this causes trouble when the loadee chose an address that precisely
> > > overwrites the loader, which is garanteed to happen when GRUB is loading
> > > it
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:09:02AM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > IIRC this causes trouble when the loadee chose an address that precisely
> > overwrites the loader, which is garanteed to happen when GRUB is loading
> > itself, AFAICT.
>
> Sure. My recommendation is, in case where you might
On Sunday 20 July 2008 01:06:22 Robert Millan wrote:
> Anyone recalls the reason our loaders had to jump back to kernel
> (startup.S) to do the final part of the load?
Not all of them should do that, but it might be more convenient. I look at one
by one:
- The chainloader needs to get back the o
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyone recalls the reason our loaders had to jump back to kernel (startup.S)
> to
> do the final part of the load?
>
> IIRC this causes trouble when the loadee chose an address that precisely
> overwrites the loader, whi
