[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Add a module for retrieving SMBIOS information

From: David Michael
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a module for retrieving SMBIOS information
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:41:16 -0500

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Prarit Bhargava <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 02:26 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> On 02/02/2015 12:09 PM, David Michael wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Prarit Bhargava <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On 02/01/2015 09:05 PM, David Michael wrote:
>>>>> * grub-core/commands/i386/smbios.c: New file.
>>>>> * grub-core/Makefile.core.def (smbios): New module.
>>>>> * docs/grub.texi (smbios): New node.
>>>>> (Command-line and menu entry commands): Add a menu entry for smbios.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> There was some interest on help-grub about supporting SMBIOS access
>>>>> upstream.
>>>> OOC, why?  Why would you need to do this?  I'm certainly not against doing 
>>>> this
>>>> but just wondering exactly why you want to do this.
>>> The thread on grub-help asked about booting particular kernel versions
>>> off a hot-pluggable drive based on the detected hardware, which this
>>> would allow.
>>> I originally wrote it to change what options are available based on
>>> whether a disk is being booted physically or virtually.  Since QEMU
>>> makes it easy to add SMBIOS entries on the command line, I've also
>>> been using it for random tweaks like showing a vga_text boot menu
>>> instead of gfxterm when running QEMU with "-display curses".
>> Ah interesting David -- and good job on getting the efi.smbios stuff in there
>> too as that's an easy thing to miss.  I'll take a closer look ...
> FWIW, I think it looks fine and it definitely has a valid use case.  I'd 
> suggest
> that you update the description with Rajat's comment.

Okay, to be clear, by "description" here do you mean to put the use
case in the commit message?

> One odd thing in the patch (and it may be something weird on my end that I've
> never seen before).  When I saved and applied your patch via 'git am', the 
> patch
> contained a few "^L" lines.

Yes, I used formfeeds to follow the GNU coding standards document when
I first wrote the module.  I'll take them out of the updated patch.



reply via email to

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