Sorry, forgot to attach
phcoder wrote:
> Hello, again
> I had a look at your patch. In some mail it was suggested that kernel
> patch should be split from module that uses it. So I resend the kernel
> part of my patch. Another question is whether we need some kind of
> abortion procedure (like in your patch) if a preboot hook fails.
> Javier Martín wrote:
>> An interface like this is implemented in another patch in "discussion",
>> my drivemap patch (see the August list archives). As yours, it is
>> linked-list based and very similar in the prototypes. I haven't checked
>> if your code has any kind of errors/corner cases,
> 
> I checked and found that I didn't check if grub_malloc succeeded
> 
>> but it seems terser
>> than mine even though it's a bit more difficult to understand because
>> you use double pointers to avoid my handling of the head case. I don't
>> understand the purpose of doubly-linking the list though...
>>
> The goal is to avoid walking through list when deleting an entry from it.
>>> Whether we need also interface for adding "postboot" commands? (in case
>>> boot_function returns)
>> I don't think it would offer a lot of functionality because most loaders
>> don't return on failure, they just get stuck or their payload
>> triple-faults and reboots.
> 
> It's the case for i386-pc loaders but not the case of some other targets
> (e.g. EFI). So the question remains.
> 
> Vladimir Serbinenko