From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Gficu-0004zo-1E for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:53:24 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gfics-0004wK-H4 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:53:22 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gficn-0004li-K3 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:53:21 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gficm-0004lG-Rk for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:53:17 -0500 Received: from [212.85.152.101] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Gficm-0004iO-Ok for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:53:16 -0500 Received: from kotoba.oasis.nexedi.com (kotoba.oasis.nexedi.com [212.85.152.101]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754BE3CC8E4F0 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 23:33:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [??1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C433CC8E4EE for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 23:33:06 +0100 (CET) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:53:12 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <1161892715.17811.33.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> <200610302015.45634.okuji@enbug.org> <1162258987.28437.13.camel@diesel> In-Reply-To: <1162258987.28437.13.camel@diesel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611022053.12685.okuji@enbug.org> X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.101610, version=0.17.2 Subject: Re: some multiboot2 comments 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: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:53:22 -0000 On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:43, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 21:15 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > On Saturday 28 October 2006 20:32, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > > Are you saying that given tag->key == foo, tag->length == sizeof(struct > > > tag_foo)? I think it makes far more sense to allow 'length' to be > > > independent of 'key', and that means we don't need this 'reserved' > > > stuff. > > > > 'length' is sometimes somehow independent. When passing data whose size > > is variable, 'length' specifies the size. The size of an item is > > indirectly defined by 'length'. The size of an item can be different from > > the size of data, because of a padding for an alignment. > > That definition doesn't take advantage of the flexibility 'length' could > give us. We should be able to use arbitrary values for 'length', even > when the tag structure size is well-defined. There is no reason not > to... Right. Okuji