On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 01:04:30PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Robert Millan<r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 06:16:24PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > >> I don't think we should rename "byte_order" to "unused". Just because > >> we doesn't use it now to determine the endianess, > > > > Shouldn't we be checking for it? (and error out if mismatch). > This field is unstraightforward to use. We already have the same > information from the magic (which is stored in native-endian). I feel > like checking additional field will just lead to rejected FS > especially if I don't get this field right. In other words I prefer to > keep complexity to minimum especially in parts of code not used > extensively.
As long as you're confident that we're discarding invalid FS reliably, no problem with it. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
