On Tuesday 07 April 2009 14:25:53 Bean wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji <ok...@enbug.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean <bean12...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji <ok...@enbug.org> > > > > wrote: > >> >> I've undone r2063, since we're still discussing how to / not to split > >> >> modules. Bean, you must respect teamwork. If you are unable to follow > >> >> such a fundamental rule, I will have to disable your permission. > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I thought the previous mail is about replacing grub_printf with > >> > grub_dprint, I'm ok with that. This patch has been in mail list for > >> > sometime, it is essential to get a working display in intel macs. > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> How about this patch ? The split is necessary as it introduces new > >> command loadbios and fakebios that uses the fake_bios_data function, > >> and it would be ugly to put them all inside linux.c. > > > > Do you have any strong reason to make loadbios and fakebios separate? I > > think the overhead is negligible. > > Hi, > > loadbios and fakebios are sort of like hacks for the efi platform, I > think they shouldn't be placed in the linux loader. Also, by moving > the platform dependent code out, we can merge it with i386 generic > loader loader/i386/linux.c.
I reviewed your patch again, and I confirmed that it was good. Thanks. Regards, Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
