Re: Kernel section info.

[Kurt Skauen]

OKUJI Yoshinori <address@hidden> writes:

> > Maybe it whould be a good idea to have this defined a bit more rigid?
> > Forcing the current layout might be a bit to strict, but at least
> > define that the boot-module list should be sorted on module locations
> > whould IMHO be a good idea. That whould make it much easyer to avoid
> > trashing the modules before proper memory managment is initialized.
> > And it whould be much easyer to implement this in the boot loader than
> > to sort it later in the kernel.
> 
>   Maybe, but IMO, it would be much easier for OS writers to let a boot
> loader locate modules appropriately, because they wouldn't have to be
> worried about the locations any longer. I know that there are some
> people who don't like to add another format into Multiboot, but I'll
> add this in the future, because you won't have to use the format, if
> you don't like it.

Sorry, but I did not understood a word of what you tried to explain
here :( Doesn't the boot loader locate modules in the current version?
Do you mean that the kernel should dictate where each modules should be
loaded? In that case, how is this supposed to be done? It can't ask
the kernel before it is booted, and the kernel won't know how big the
modules are or how many there is at build time.


-- 
Kurt Skauen. ( http://www.atheos.cx/ )

"There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take
credit. Try to be in the first group, there is less competition there." __
Indira Gandhi