From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1JH3ud-0003IX-Q6 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:10:35 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JH3uc-0003Hr-9n for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:10:34 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JH3ua-0003Gz-Nk for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:10:33 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH3ua-0003Gu-Di for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:10:32 -0500 Received: from smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.22]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JH3ua-0006Du-20 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:10:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (249-174.surfsnel.dsl.internl.net [145.99.174.249]) by smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0LLAUb1052897 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:10:31 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mgerards@xs4all.nl) From: Marco Gerards To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <20080120142238.GA11485@thorin> <878x2j832u.fsf@xs4all.nl> <20080121210112.GB15119@thorin> Mail-Copies-To: mgerards@xs4all.nl Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:11:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20080121210112.GB15119@thorin> (Robert Millan's message of "Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:01:12 +0100") Message-ID: <874pd6994h.fsf@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 Subject: Re: [PATCH] safety check in claim_heap() 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: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:10:34 -0000 Robert Millan writes: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:07:37PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote: >> Robert Millan writes: >> >> Hi, >> >> > What do you think of adding this kind of checks? I know it's not a >> > perfect safegard, but it can save your day in some situations (it helped >> > me during i386/ieee1275 port, when link address was 0x100000). >> >> If this fixes the i386-ieee1275 port, this is fine to me. > > It isn't currently needed by either of the i386-ieee1275 targets (qemu and > xo). > > However, it was during an earlier stage of the port in which link address > was 0x100000 rather than 0x10000. > > My question is whether it makes sense as a general safety check. Well, if it isn't going to occur with the current firmware implementations, I do not see the use. But it will not hurt either. Simply, I do not care either way... I leave this up to you ;-) -- Marco