On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:54 PM, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 0x1f0 is unsuitable for use as sentinel -- or in fact for any purpose -- > because it is quite plausible that someone may (fairly sanely) start the > copy range at 0x1f0 instead of 0x1f1... we really should have documented > it that way but it is too late now. > > However, we can use 0x1ef.
right. updated to use 0x1ef. Thanks Yinghai
ext_ramdisk_image_v6_1.patch
Description: Binary data
