Re: ping (update-grub2)

2006-11-28 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Monday 27 November 2006 18:00, Robert Millan wrote: > No comments? Are you interested in getting this into the main grub tree? > In my opinion, since update-grub needs a rewrite it's a good oportunity to > merge this now and unify grub.cfg generation across distributions > (something that wasn'

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread Johan Rydberg
"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote: >> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both >> architectures will use 64-bit types. > > No. Both should use 32-bit, because GRUB transfers control in 32-bit mode. > Pa

Re: [RFC] multiboot2 loader

2006-11-28 Thread Jeroen Dekkers
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:11:37AM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Sunday 26 November 2006 23:50, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > Nothing prevents you from writing a C library - the POSIX and C > > standards are available independently. Yet the C library is under > > LGPL. Also nothing prevents you

Re: [RFC] multiboot2 loader

2006-11-28 Thread Jeroen Dekkers
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:08:46AM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Sunday 26 November 2006 11:18, Tomáš Ebenlendr wrote: > > What about having > > "Multiboot's" header as a part of "Multiboot project". > > Multiboot Specification is not a part of GRUB in any sense. It is discussed > in >

Re: [RFC] multiboot2 loader

2006-11-28 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 11:59, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > You completely miss the point that we want to have header files and > example code that can be used by other projects to implement > multiboot. *sigh* Sleep well, and reconsider what I have said. Okuji __

Re: [RFC] multiboot2 loader

2006-11-28 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 11:59, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:08:46AM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > On Sunday 26 November 2006 11:18, Tomáš Ebenlendr wrote: > > > What about having > > > "Multiboot's" header as a part of "Multiboot project". > > > > Multiboot Specific

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 10:29, Johan Rydberg wrote: > "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > >> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both > >> architectures will use 64-bit types. > > > > No. Both shou

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread bibo,mao
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: On Tuesday 28 November 2006 10:29, Johan Rydberg wrote: > "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > >> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both > >> architectures will use 64-

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread tgingold
Quoting "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tuesday 28 November 2006 10:29, Johan Rydberg wrote: > > "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Saturday 25 November 2006 04:33, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > >> That's exactly the point: there will be no difference. Both > >

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 13:46, bibo,mao wrote: > yes, x84_64EFI starts with 64-bit long mode and page enabled(virtual > address equals physical address) if it is x86_64 efi bios, it is defined in > section 2.3.4 of UEFI Specification Version 2.0. > > If kernel image is bzImage, x64 efi bootload

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread Johan Rydberg
"bibo,mao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If kernel image is bzImage, x64 efi bootloader need switch to 32 bit > protect mode(or real mode) from 64 bit long mode, and if kernel > image is gzipped/plain format, efi bootloader can directly jump to > 64-bit kernel entry address without mode switch. M

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread bibo,mao
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: On Tuesday 28 November 2006 13:46, bibo,mao wrote: > yes, x84_64EFI starts with 64-bit long mode and page enabled(virtual > address equals physical address) if it is x86_64 efi bios, it is defined in > section 2.3.4 of UEFI Specification Version 2.0. > > If kernel i

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread bibo,mao
Johan Rydberg wrote: "bibo,mao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If kernel image is bzImage, x64 efi bootloader need switch to 32 bit > protect mode(or real mode) from 64 bit long mode, and if kernel > image is gzipped/plain format, efi bootloader can directly jump to > 64-bit kernel entry addr

Re: multiboot2: variable data size

2006-11-28 Thread Andrei E. Warkentin
Inlined. On 28.11.2006, at 19:55, bibo,mao wrote: Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: On Tuesday 28 November 2006 13:46, bibo,mao wrote: > yes, x84_64EFI starts with 64-bit long mode and page enabled (virtual > address equals physical address) if it is x86_64 efi bios, it is defined in > section