From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1GrgXJ-0007eo-S1 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:05:05 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GrgXH-0007eb-0B for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:05:03 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GrgXE-0007eG-DQ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:05:02 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrgXE-0007eD-7d for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:05:00 -0500 Received: from [212.85.152.101] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GrgXD-0007Jg-MD for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:04:59 -0500 Received: from kotoba.oasis.nexedi.com (kotoba.oasis.nexedi.com [212.85.152.101]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E243CD54D03 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:59:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [??1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D8E3CD54D02 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:59:06 +0100 (CET) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:04:58 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <1163545104.12931.49.camel@basalt> <873b7v2ycl.fsf@xs4all.nl> <1165345752.11779.44.camel@basalt> In-Reply-To: <1165345752.11779.44.camel@basalt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200612052104.58254.okuji@enbug.org> X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.095854, version=0.17.2 Subject: Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional 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: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:05:03 -0000 On Tuesday 05 December 2006 20:09, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > I am all for something that is simple. Initially it looked like > > Hollis' proposal was more complex, but IIRC he mentioned he wanted to > > work on making this easier to use. Isn't this what he did? Or did I > > misunderstand something? If someone (Hollis in this case) thinks I am > > wrong and comes with a good argumentation, I am always willing to > > change my opinion. > > I already illustrated how easy it is: > MB_HEADER() > MB_START_TAGS() > MB_LOADADDR(0x1234) > MB_ENTRYADDR(0x1234) > MB_END_TAGS() > > Please explain if you think this it too difficult. I have already said why this is not applicable to all users. > Note: I refuse to believe that ORing flags into a .long is less complex. I do, too. It is as as complex as using tags. So what? Okuji