From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MOgSm-00038C-JW for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:22:08 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MOgSk-00036n-OD for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:22:06 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MOgSg-0002yi-Ai for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:22:06 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53343 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MOgSg-0002yX-4B for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:22:02 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:10097) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MOgSf-0004gL-ME for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:22:01 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2009 19:22:00 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D095C34C6A for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:30:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: References: <87ws6jntc3.fsf@xs4all.nl> <1247079070.26368.25.camel@mj> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:21:58 -0400 Message-Id: <1247095318.9456.8.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [RFC] New object format for grub2 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:22:06 -0000 On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 00:57 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > What about SELF? (coreboot format) If it's sane I would prefer to > share a format between these 2 projects. The description is here: http://www.coreboot.org/SELF I think the biggest problem is lack of support for any relocations. Even if we resolve all symbols against the kernel, modules still may depend on other modules. Either we preallocate all modules to fixed places in memory, or we'll need to use the PARAMS section to hold relocations, magic numbers, versions and so on. My impression in that the SELF format is too dumb and we don't want to go there. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin