[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: status grub2 port of grub-legasy map command

From: Pavel Roskin
Subject: Re: status grub2 port of grub-legasy map command
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:17:02 -0400

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 17:01 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Pavel Roskin <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were opposed to the patch.  I assumed
> > that you just wanted to make some improvements.  Nobody was against the
> > drivemap command in principle.  The discussion was about minor details.
> Ok. Sorry for my harsh reaction. Now I'm under a lot of stress.

No problem.

> > I'm fine with the change from "const void" to "const char", but we need
> > to remove a preceding comment about void labels.
> It's not that I'm opposed to void in principle. Just using the same
> constructions to do the same things in different files makes code
> easier to learn and port

I wonder if we can go the other way and use void for all labels without
storage.  Indeed, it's too easy to misuse a char variable by forgetting
the ampersand before it.

> > As for the parse_biosdisk() change, I'd like to see an explanation.
> The explanation is that if user uses ata or usbms code and code calls
> biosdisk, BIOS may issue a command which may conflict with ata/usbms.
> Unfortunately it's not a scenario we're able to circumvent (BIOS is
> headache) so I prefer to err on a safe side

I agree that we should avoid touching the hardware.  Besides, after
loading ata we may not see some drives that BIOS can see.

Validation of user input is good, but only if it's implemented

Another approach may be to use biosdisk calls only if biosdisk is
active.  Otherwise, trust the user and turn off validation.

Pavel Roskin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]