From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Lp0xj-00013H-So for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:58:39 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lp0xh-00011v-Lm for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:58:37 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lp0xe-000108-PV for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:58:35 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43517 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lp0xe-0000zi-3b for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:58:34 -0400 Received: from mail.nexedi.com ([91.121.25.85]:40501 helo=nexedi.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lp0xd-00033b-GV for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:58:33 -0400 Received: from [10.8.0.46] (unknown [10.8.0.46]) by nexedi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A223D9F4 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:58:31 +0200 (CEST) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:58:27 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <49C780C3.4010403@gmail.com> <200903282331.14645.okuji@enbug.org> <20090401125754.GA27958@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20090401125754.GA27958@thorin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904012258.27683.okuji@enbug.org> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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 13:58:38 -0000 On Wednesday 01 April 2009 21:57:55 Robert Millan wrote: > 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? No. > 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? I agree. Regards, Okuji