From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1K7I4r-0006OQ-IS for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:49:01 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K7I4m-0006Is-Gi for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:48:56 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K7I4j-0006FL-Rw for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:48:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36513 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K7I4j-0006FA-MP for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:48:53 -0400 Received: from ns39764.ovh.net ([91.121.25.85]:47151 helo=nexedi.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K7I4j-0000HY-Fi for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:48:53 -0400 Received: from [10.8.0.46] (unknown [10.8.0.46]) by nexedi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF923D994; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:52:19 +0200 (CEST) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: grub-devel@gnu.org Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:48:44 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <20080531152125.GA14263@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20080531152125.GA14263@thorin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806140048.45062.okuji@enbug.org> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Cc: Robert Millan Subject: Re: [PATCH] Environment block support 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: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:48:56 -0000 On Saturday 31 May 2008 17:21:25 Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:09:50PM +0800, Bean wrote: > > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Robert Millan wrote: > > > I think the method is sound; what I'm complaining about (and it's not > > > something specific to your patch) is that we're referring to two > > > different things by the same name ("root"), and even put them in the > > > same variable. > > > > > > In the initialization phase, "root" is the device that contains our > > > GRUB directory. > > > > > > Afterwards, "root" is the device we're currently accessing (be it for > > > loading fonts, backgrounds, Linux images, whatever). > > > > > > If "root" means "just a placeholder for whatever device we're acessing > > > at the moment", then it would make sense, but in our code (i.e. in the > > > names we're giving to commands and functions) it's assumed to mean "the > > > device containing /boot/grub". > > > > > > So what do we want to do with this? Should we have different variables > > > for each thing (and in that case, is "root" for initial stage or for > > > grub.cfg) or should we use "root" as a placeholder for any path > > > reference, and adjust our function names etc to reflect that? > > > > root is used in loaders as well, we shouldn't change its name. We > > could use another variable to store the root device at initial stage, > > it could actually be useful as it always points to the boot media. > > Perhaps we can name it "boot". What's your idea ? > > I'm fine with "boot". I'm CCing Okuji; would like to make sure he doesn't > have any objections (I think it was he who gave it this layout). "boot" is used for a command, so it is very confusing to use the same name for a variable. If you want to have this kind of variable, please find another name. I myself have no idea. Okuji