From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Etv9K-0005AO-3t for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:01:02 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Etv9I-0005A4-Kd for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:01:00 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Etv9G-00059S-2V for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:01:00 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Etv9F-00059O-V0 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:00:58 -0500 Received: from [194.109.24.23] (helo=smtp-vbr3.xs4all.nl) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EtvAY-0000yp-7K for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:02:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (mgerards.xs4all.nl [82.92.27.129]) by smtp-vbr3.xs4all.nl (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k03MxDi9093910 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 23:59:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mgerards@xs4all.nl) Mail-Copies-To: mgerards@xs4all.nl To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <43BAF893.5080205@omniflux.com> From: Marco Gerards Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:59:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: <43BAF893.5080205@omniflux.com> (omniflux+lists@omniflux.com's message of "Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:20:03 -0700") Message-ID: <87ek3ogbp6.fsf@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [rfc] User definable terminfo support 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, 03 Jan 2006 23:01:00 -0000 Omniflux writes: > This code is incomplete, but I want to get some feedback from you, > Marco, to ensure I am going down the correct path. > > Is there a reason there is not a way to unregister an env. variable > hook, or is it just not yet coded? You could write to null pointers. The last hooks passed to the grub_register_variable_hook function are the once used. > Should there be code in the grub_register_variable_hook function to > prevent overwriting an existing hook or should there be support for > multiple hooks (how would ordering be handled though?)? You just need one hook, that's for TERM. I think it is safe to assume that the terminfo stuff is the only user. When registering you should get the hook, when you unregister you should remove the hook (otherwise it can point to a non-existing function). -- Marco