Re: multiboot on EFI

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:31:14PM +0900, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 28 March 2009 22:13:06 Robert Millan wrote:
> > Do we need the memory map to be sorted?  AFAIK loadees can cope with
> > unsorted maps fine;  is there an exception?
> 
> As I wrote in the draft, a boot loader should sort the memory map. An OS image 
> must deal with an unsorted memory map, because the wording is "should", but 
> it is still user-friendly (especially for debugging).

You mean the multiboot 2 draft?  Since this change is backward-compatible, is
there any reason we want this in multiboot 2 but not in multiboot 1?

I don't like that the two diverge so much, it makes the implementation so much
harder to maintain.  Right now the multiboot 2 loader is a complete bitrot.

Can we merge this and similar backward-compatible changes into multiboot 1?

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."