On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Instead, elilo collects the needed information > > defined in include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h itself, > > That's nasty. I must have missed when we declared this a public ABI. > It's not really designed to be one. Was there public discussion on this?
Maybe What I said is not clear and correct. In fact, the elilo follows the boot protocol defined in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt, just not uses arch/(i386|x86_64)/boot/setup.S to collect the information, but collects them by elilo itself. Information in include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h is just a part of that in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt. > I expect we'll have some grief from this in the future. > > If it's really done this way we should at least add a version > number and a boot loader ID like the standard boot protocol > so that bugs later can be worked around. Also some Documentation > would be good. And comments. But discussion first. > Is what defined in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt the standard boot protocol. If it is, the elilo follows it. My previous expressing is not clear and correct. Best Regards, Huang Ying - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/