Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

From: "Mark A. Greer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:02:04 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:

> Any reason why BI_LAST has those 4 bytes of data set to 0, why not
> just BI_LAST size=0 and no data ?

Only reason is that it is how its implemented now so to keep backward
compatibility...

E.g., _2_4_devel, arch/ppc/boot/common/misc-simple.c:decompress_kernel()

        rec->tag = BI_LAST;
        rec->size = sizeof(struct bi_record);
        rec = (struct bi_record *)((unsigned long)rec + rec->size);

Mark

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/