From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1LteZ1-00079R-Hb for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:04:19 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LteYz-00077G-1i for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:04:17 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LteYs-00070w-Uv for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:04:15 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47796 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LteYs-00070k-Pg for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:04:10 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f166.google.com ([209.85.220.166]:51115) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LteYs-0007vw-4B for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:04:10 -0400 Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so2575956fxm.42 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:04:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1uOx+chCX62MU4pF5zCpf7y75lSHgvF5bStJ4+Hpn0U=; b=MgWPs1lE26ed/8iZYxBNWOZfSS0juCi3p1smNDD73jbqcLjGb64+3RAnlGPVB0E8O4 thKZ2bzK60+mJ1wKXWH2eY3KNlGhuw5xrr7YDSVI1oJloAAo7yuvMAoYIOJ//+oMBGjH /9h3RB8yoHIFMtKkmlJolBA7kgn+uTKoM40Fk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=B90aCaEEZQjfm8P+TSeftuP70+o17fQK5QFfrXzGERr+TZq7Z3V39+zVEjeO3IJrWR vOnp1Zrx9UfeuLaPhCSR+rTgywNDpDZO64EGTMRRgFHrJZcxobsN9nTRSvBEkT0aKgyO Y9P/AXBltB1gXi7qLvBp0SD+Kq2Xh00ApPOK4= Received: by 10.86.98.10 with SMTP id v10mr3756320fgb.76.1239699849130; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.25? (42-65.62-81.cust.bluewin.ch [81.62.65.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d6sm8232006fga.22.2009.04.14.02.04.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49E4518D.1090301@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:04:13 +0200 From: phcoder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <49E3E0FB.1070907@verizon.net> <1239694395.3718.5.camel@fz.local> <49E455B7.5040402@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <49E455B7.5040402@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: status grub2 port of grub-legasy map command 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: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:04:17 -0000 I haven't yet looked in depth in drivemap patch but it has some problems. It uses preboot hook interface for which I proposed an update in my recent patch "preboot hooks". Also it doesn't update memorymap correctly. For this it should use my "mmap services" interface John Stanley wrote: > Thanks Felix, > > Hurm.. Well, if anyone is interested, I have just made a couple of > additional updates to the drivemap.path.8 code, > and now with r2104 the "unaligned pointer" issue is gone, and it is > working great on my systems. I can post the patch if you or anyone else > is interested. > John > > > Felix Zielcke wrote: >> Am Montag, den 13.04.2009, 21:03 -0400 schrieb John Stanley: >> >>> Hi all, >>> I was wondering what the current status of a grub2 port of the >>> grub-0.97 "map" and "rootnoverify" commands is? I have found some >>> work done to this end in the "drivemap.patch" work, but I find >>> nothing more recent than drivemap.patch.8 dated around Aug 2008. >>> >> >> The current status of it are exactly what you found out. >> I don't know if that'll ever change. >> >> >> >>> Could anyone give me any pointers/direction on what might be >>> happening here? Could it be that the "norootverify"-functionality of >>> grub-legasy is lacking here? Or, perhaps, that the "--force" option >>> is not being honored ? >>> >> >> rootnoverify isn't needed anymore, because root is now just a variable >> and not anymore a command which tried to verify it. So basically >> rootnoverify is default now. >> chainloader --force just skips the check for 0xaa55, normally it >> shouldn't be needed with a valid windows bootsector. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko