[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional
From: |
Hollis Blanchard |
Subject: |
Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:18:19 -0600 |
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 23:08 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Thursday 07 December 2006 23:39, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > I thought we had two options: embedding tags, or ORing bits into an
> > embedded long. When I suggested embedding tags, you told me it was too
> > complicated so will cause developer errors. Have I misunderstood?
>
> I meant that the complexity of using bitfields plus a fixed-size structure is
> identical to that of using tags. But I bet that it is more complicated to use
> tags _by hand_. For me, "complex" and "complicated" are quite different.
>
> Besides how to make it look easier by predefined macros, please consider the
> spec itself. With bitfields and fixed-size fields, all you must remember is:
>
> - What bits mean what
>
> - How to order values passed to a boot loader
>
> With tags, you need to remember:
>
> - What tags mean what
>
> - What tag size is expected to each tag
>
> - What tags must be combined with a given tag
>
> If you generate tags by programming, I don't think the use of tags is more
> complicated. It can be even easier for a parser. However, when specifying
> tags by hand, I cannot believe that it is as straightforward as using fields.
>
> If you allow me to use a "big gun", I would tell you that most system
> programmers are used to fields, while they are not familar with writing tags.
I'm willing to go along with this, since I realized that only a tiny
number of people will need to use this flags (and that number does not
include me :). It seemed to work for GRUB Legacy, so I guess it can work
here too.
My loader code doesn't currently read either tags or flags, and since
most people don't need this functionality I plan to check it in without
that; it can be added later as needed.
-Hollis
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional, (continued)
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional, Marco Gerards, 2006/12/04
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional, Hollis Blanchard, 2006/12/05
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional, Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2006/12/05
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional, Hollis Blanchard, 2006/12/07
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional, Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2006/12/12
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional,
Hollis Blanchard <=
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional, Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2006/12/13
- Re: multiboot2: make multiboot header optional, Marco Gerards, 2006/12/13