[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:22:32 +0200
Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (X11/20090318)
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
On Saturday 04 April 2009 04:56:14 Bean wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Yoshinori K. Okuji <address@hidden> wrote:
At r2010, Bean added fake_bios_data, and this function calls grub_printf.
Why not grub_dprintf? Was there any reason to print a message on the
Well, I'm actually planning to move fake_bios_data to a separate
module loadbios, so that linux loader would be cleaner.
I am afraid that you've got a disease of making more modules. This is a bad
disease. I have seen some projects which failed in refactoring due to this
disease (e.g. Zope3).
In this case I think that loadbios must be moved to a separate module.
Not for microkernel or something. Just loadbios will also be used to
boot multiboot kernels and perhaps bsd too. Also if EFI-related
functions are moved to a separate module then i386/efi/linux.c can be
merged to i386/linux.c (I'm also working on this)
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
- r2010, Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2009/04/03