Comitted On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Robert Millan<r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 01:04:30PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Robert Millan<r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 06:16:24PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: >> >> I don't think we should rename "byte_order" to "unused". Just because >> >> we doesn't use it now to determine the endianess, >> > >> > Shouldn't we be checking for it? (and error out if mismatch). >> This field is unstraightforward to use. We already have the same >> information from the magic (which is stored in native-endian). I feel >> like checking additional field will just lead to rejected FS >> especially if I don't get this field right. In other words I prefer to >> keep complexity to minimum especially in parts of code not used >> extensively. > > As long as you're confident that we're discarding invalid FS reliably, no > problem with it. > > -- > Robert Millan > > The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and > how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we > still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >
-- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
