Re: no commit allowed under discussion
I posted binaries from grub2 rev 2074 with all modules, for further evaluation - http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7061606&postcount=595 (post #595 grub2074.tar.gz ) On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Peter Cros wrote: > Hi, > SVN rev 2074 should be good for Xserve1,1 and 1,2 according to tests we ran > at ubuntu forums. > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Drew Rosen wrote: > >> Hi Peter Cros, >> >> If you need anyone to run tests on the Xserve, I have a score of machines >> that we want to use on Linux... >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 9, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Peter Cros wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> It will be good to get this resolved and on SVN grub2 so people >>> (ubuntuforums) can build for Apple efi with the latest 'hacks' >>> (fakebios, loadbios etc) found necessary in testing. Particlarly >>> Xserve which requires efi boot. >>> >>> >>> On 4/7/09, Bean wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji >>> >> 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. -- Bean ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >>> >>> -- >>> Cros (pxw) >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Grub-devel mailing list >>> Grub-devel@gnu.org >>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >>> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Grub-devel mailing list >> Grub-devel@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >> > > > > -- > Cros (pxw) > > > -- Cros (pxw) ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
Hi, SVN rev 2074 should be good for Xserve1,1 and 1,2 according to tests we ran at ubuntu forums. On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Drew Rosen wrote: > Hi Peter Cros, > > If you need anyone to run tests on the Xserve, I have a score of machines > that we want to use on Linux... > > > > > On Apr 9, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Peter Cros wrote: > > Hi, >> It will be good to get this resolved and on SVN grub2 so people >> (ubuntuforums) can build for Apple efi with the latest 'hacks' >> (fakebios, loadbios etc) found necessary in testing. Particlarly >> Xserve which requires efi boot. >> >> >> On 4/7/09, Bean wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji >>> wrote: >>> On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji >> > 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. >>> >>> -- >>> Bean >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Grub-devel mailing list >>> Grub-devel@gnu.org >>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Cros (pxw) >> >> >> ___ >> Grub-devel mailing list >> Grub-devel@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >> > > > > ___ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel > -- Cros (pxw) ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
Hi Peter Cros, If you need anyone to run tests on the Xserve, I have a score of machines that we want to use on Linux... On Apr 9, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Peter Cros wrote: Hi, It will be good to get this resolved and on SVN grub2 so people (ubuntuforums) can build for Apple efi with the latest 'hacks' (fakebios, loadbios etc) found necessary in testing. Particlarly Xserve which requires efi boot. On 4/7/09, Bean wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji > 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. -- Bean ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel -- Cros (pxw) ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Tuesday 07 April 2009 14:25:53 Bean wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: >> > On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji >> > >> > 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. Hi, Thanks, commit it now. -- Bean ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 14:25:53 Bean wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: > >> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji > > > > 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
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
Hi, It will be good to get this resolved and on SVN grub2 so people (ubuntuforums) can build for Apple efi with the latest 'hacks' (fakebios, loadbios etc) found necessary in testing. Particlarly Xserve which requires efi boot. On 4/7/09, Bean wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: >> On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: >>> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji >> 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. > > -- > Bean > > > ___ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel > -- Cros (pxw) ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: >> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji > 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. -- Bean ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji 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. this module is useful in conjunction with other loaders (multiboot, bsd, pc_chainloader) as well Regards, Okuji ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 01:43:17 Bean wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji 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. Regards, Okuji ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Bean wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji 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. -- Bean ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Re: no commit allowed under discussion
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji 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. -- Bean ___ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
