On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 09:52:02PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Monday 30 October 2006 21:24, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > The best raison is to have a unified method to identify a module. IMHO the
> > argument line is to be interpreted only by the module.
> >
> > You know all the parameter
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:43, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 21:15 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 October 2006 20:32, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > Are you saying that given tag->key == foo, tag->length == sizeof(struct
> > > tag_foo)? I think it makes far
On Monday 30 October 2006 21:24, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> The best raison is to have a unified method to identify a module. IMHO the
> argument line is to be interpreted only by the module.
>
> You know all the parameters can be put into the command line...
So you don't want to mix up arguments t
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 21:15 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 28 October 2006 20:32, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > Are you saying that given tag->key == foo, tag->length == sizeof(struct
> > tag_foo)? I think it makes far more sense to allow 'length' to be
> > independent of 'key', and t
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 09:20:55PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Sunday 29 October 2006 17:38, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > grub should be aware of the main module types. For these TYPE is a keyword
> > such as ramdisk, kernel, xen-acm...
> > For not yet known types, TYPE can be an UUID.
> >
On Sunday 29 October 2006 17:38, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> grub should be aware of the main module types. For these TYPE is a keyword
> such as ramdisk, kernel, xen-acm...
> For not yet known types, TYPE can be an UUID.
> UUID doesn't require a central administration. I think this is a real
> adva
On Saturday 28 October 2006 20:32, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> Are you saying that given tag->key == foo, tag->length == sizeof(struct
> tag_foo)? I think it makes far more sense to allow 'length' to be
> independent of 'key', and that means we don't need this 'reserved'
> stuff.
'length' is sometim
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:37:35AM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 02:58:35PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > http://grub.enbug.org/MultibootDraft
> > >
> > > I'm looking at implementing this now.
> > >
>
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 16:11 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Thursday 26 October 2006 21:58, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > Module:
> > Because of the 'length' field in the tag header, the 'reserved' field
> > isn't actually needed. The 'length' field makes every one of these tag
> > structures i
On Friday 27 October 2006 07:37, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > Some platform may need it. On EFI the OS can't get the memmap from EFI
> > because it is too late.
>
> OK. In that case we're still keeping with the philosophy of only passing
> information to the kernel that it can't obtain itself.
Howe
On Thursday 26 October 2006 21:58, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> Module:
> Because of the 'length' field in the tag header, the 'reserved' field
> isn't actually needed. The 'length' field makes every one of these tag
> structures inherently variably sized. Any data added later to this tag
> will be sk
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 02:58:35PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > http://grub.enbug.org/MultibootDraft
> >
> > I'm looking at implementing this now.
> >
> > Module:
> > Because of the 'length' field in the tag header, the 'reserved'
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 02:58:35PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> http://grub.enbug.org/MultibootDraft
>
> I'm looking at implementing this now.
>
> Module:
> Because of the 'length' field in the tag header, the 'reserved' field
> isn't actually needed. The 'length' field makes every one of the
13 matches
Mail list logo
