On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Instead, elilo collects the needed information
> > defined in include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h itself,
>
> That's nasty. I must have missed when we declared this a public ABI.
> It's not really designed to be one. Was there public discussion on this?
Maybe What I said is not clear and correct. In fact, the elilo follows
the boot protocol defined in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt, just
not uses arch/(i386|x86_64)/boot/setup.S to collect the information,
but collects them by elilo itself. Information in
include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h is just a part of that in
Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt.
> I expect we'll have some grief from this in the future.
>
> If it's really done this way we should at least add a version
> number and a boot loader ID like the standard boot protocol
> so that bugs later can be worked around. Also some Documentation
> would be good. And comments. But discussion first.
>
Is what defined in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt the standard boot
protocol. If it is, the elilo follows it. My previous expressing is
not clear and correct.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
