From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Lp019-0004kZ-Tv for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:58:08 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lp017-0004ho-7o for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:58:05 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lp012-0004bu-1j for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:58:04 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48962 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lp011-0004bb-Mi for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:57:59 -0400 Received: from aybabtu.com ([69.60.117.155]:38999) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lp010-0006y3-R1 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:57:59 -0400 Received: from [192.168.10.10] (helo=thorin) by aybabtu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lozqj-0006mq-9L for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:47:21 +0200 Received: from rmh by thorin with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lp00x-0007I6-19 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:57:55 +0200 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:57:55 +0200 From: Robert Millan To: The development of GRUB 2 Message-ID: <20090401125754.GA27958@thorin> References: <49C780C3.4010403@gmail.com> <20090328131306.GB8493@thorin> <200903282331.14645.okuji@enbug.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903282331.14645.okuji@enbug.org> Organization: free as in freedom X-Message-Flag: Worried about Outlook viruses? Switch to Thunderbird! www.mozilla.com/thunderbird X-Debbugs-No-Ack: true User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: multiboot on EFI 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, 01 Apr 2009 12:58:05 -0000 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."