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, 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 Thursday 07 December 2006 23:39, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> I thought we had two options: embedding tags, or ORing bits into an
> embedded long. When I suggested embedding tags, you told me it was too
> complicated so will cause developer errors. Have I misunderstood?
I meant that the complexity
On Friday 08 December 2006 00:07, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 21:23 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > Is it a good spec which forces one to use sample code to be error-free?
>
> Please be serious.
I am perfectly serious here, although I like kidding.
> I'm really not sure w
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 Saturday 09 December 2006 01:17, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 20:46 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > > Oh, btw, it's HIGHLY confusing that disks start at 0, partitions at
> > > 1. Could you please fix it and make it consequently? either hd1,1
> > > or hd0,0, but not hd0,1
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 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 Tue, 2006-12-12 at 23:46 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
>
> The critical thing is how to reduce new things that people would have to
> study
> for using a program. GRUB Legacy made a mistake, since nearly all operating
> systems use 0-based for disks, and 1-based for partitions.
Since I'm
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 23:08 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Thursday 07 December 2006 23:39, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > I thought we had two options: embedding tags, or ORing bits into an
> > embedded long. When I suggested embedding tags, you told me it was too
> > complicated so will cause
11 matches
Mail list logo
