[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: Javier Martín
Subject: Re: status grub2 port of grub-legasy map command
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 12:01:18 +0200

El sáb, 30-05-2009 a las 17:28 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
> >> > 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.
> Not  char []
What if someone sees the code and thinks it's truly a char array? I
insist: you are stirring a tempest in a teapot. Even without taking into
account that "const void label" is more "elegant" and logical for a
simple label than using a char array, the only argument you give is
consistency with the rest of GRUB code. This is an important plus for a
decision, but consistency should never be an argument in and of itself.

Furthermore, a distinct C type for labels like "const void", or even
better, "grub_asm_label_t" would help a programmer identify them all
with a simple "find in files" command, while char arrays may abound and
be tricky to tell apart.
> >
> >> > 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
> > correctly.
> >
> > Another approach may be to use biosdisk calls only if biosdisk is
> > active.  Otherwise, trust the user and turn off validation.
> >
> I've checked and seen that ata disables biosdisk. This mean that we
> need to disable this validation. As for calling biosdisk only if it's
> active: "active" isn't well-defined with grub2 and it will add
> unnecessary complexity
Put it that way, I agree with your change. To the scrapper with
parse_biosdisk then! I think the new behaviour should be mentioned in
the drivemap --help command, though I'm too tangled up with finals to be
of any utility right now.

-- Lazy, Oblivious, Recurrent Disaster -- Habbit

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esto es una parte de mensaje firmado digitalmente

reply via email to

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