On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 11:54:41PM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 December 2006 21:56, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 06:31 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 06:02:31PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 03:48:34PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 18:02 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > On the consumer side of multiboot (in this case Xen), we need to loop
> > over the tags, and when we find a module tag, how do we know which it
> > is? The Multibo
[Sorry for the late reply]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:56:10PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 06:31 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 06:02:31PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
[...]
> > >
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 01:07, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> I guess I'm not clear on this. The modules must be enumerated in some
> order, whether manually by the user or in a config file or by a script.
> Wouldn't it be appropriate to require that this order be preserved?
The problem is that t
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 23:54 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> I am for making "type"s arbitrary. If one wants to use a "type" as an UUID,
> she can. If one wants to use a "type" as a symbolic name, she can. I think it
> is the most flexible and simplest way to make the interpretation of "type"s
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 23:28 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 09 December 2006 01:02, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On the consumer side of multiboot (in this case Xen), we need to loop
> > over the tags, and when we find a module tag, how do we know which it
> > is? The Multiboot2 spec
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 21:56, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 06:31 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 06:02:31PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > > BTW, why not adding a type field for m
On Saturday 09 December 2006 01:02, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On the consumer side of multiboot (in this case Xen), we need to loop
> over the tags, and when we find a module tag, how do we know which it
> is? The Multiboot2 spec tells us "The order of modules is not
> guaranteed." (Why not?)
Beca
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 18:02 -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>
> On the consumer side of multiboot (in this case Xen), we need to loop
> over the tags, and when we find a module tag, how do we know which it
> is? The Multiboot2 spec tells us "The order of modules is not
> guaranteed." (Why not?)
O
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 06:31 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 06:02:31PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > BTW, why not adding a type field for module tag. The type (which should
> > > be
> > > an UUID IMHO) sh
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 06:02:31PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > BTW, why not adding a type field for module tag. The type (which should be
> > an UUID IMHO) should indicate the type of the module.
> > One usage could be for Xen. On
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> BTW, why not adding a type field for module tag. The type (which should be
> an UUID IMHO) should indicate the type of the module.
> One usage could be for Xen. On Xen you can load 3 modules: the linux kernel,
> the linux ramdisk and an
12 matches
Mail list logo
