[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: grub_halt()
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: grub_halt() |
Date: |
Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:02:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 08:01:01PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:24:39PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
> > Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > grub_halt is on i386-pc defined as `void grub_halt (int no_apm)' but
> > > everywhere else as `grub_halt (void)'
> > > util/grub-emu.c has a #ifdef for these 2
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we just add an int parameter everywhere to make this more
> > > simple?
> > >
> > >
> > I think in future we'll have more different halt methods on different
> > platforms. So we could do:
> > grub_halt (int methods)
> > And have e.g.
> > GRUB_HALT_DEFAULT_METHODS
> > And e.g. on i386:
> > #define GRUB_HALT_DEFAULT_METHODS
> > (GRUB_HALT_APM|GRUB_HALT_ACPI|GRUB_HALT_HANG)
>
> I was hoping we could remove complexity rather than add more of it.
>
> Why would higher layer (who's just calling grub_halt because it wants the
> system to shutdown) want to know about things like APM or ACPI ?
Well, for now I just unified the headers but kept the current i386-pc
function parameters. This restores experimental to a buildable state.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: grub_halt(),
Robert Millan <=