H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> but I personally suspect it would be a mistake to drop the setup.
[...]
> Well, except for the fact that booting is so incredibly different on
> different architectures...
Yep, the current structure works remarkably well.
> The main reason I'm writing lbcon is because I think it will make doing
> fancy stuff with initrd a lot less painful, and it should be easy to put
> a nice user interface on it. That's the theory, at least...
Actually, I think the boot loader isn't the best place for fancy stuff.
I'd rather put this into the kernel, where I have a much nicer environment,
and where things can be done once for all architectures. initrd was a first
step in this direction.
Something I'd like to try later this year is to allow a running Linux
kernel to directly boot another Linux kernel. This should allow for very
rapid test cycles for kernel development, and it should also allow all the
fancy stuff to be done under Linux, including loading of kernels from any
file system supported by the kernel without the need for prior
registration.
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH werner.almesberger@ica.epfl.ch / /_IN_R_131__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/