[coreboot] lar copy patch

Myles Watson mylesgw at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 21:51:23 CET 2008


> I'd mirror tar behaviour. Could you post a patch which accomplishes
> that? (Match at path boundaries regardless of nesting depth.) This is
> independent of the LAR copy work, though.

Sure.  Next I'm going to wish I had tab-complete.

> 
> 
> >>>> How does LAR know that you want to copy the bootblock instead of an
> >>>> empty operation?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Since it is a create operation with a source lar, it copies the
> >>>
> >>> bootblock. It made sense to me that if you want a new lar starting
> >>>
> >>> with an old one, you were asking for the bootblock.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That's an implicit undocumented action. It will trigger a lot of head
> >> scratching in the future.
> >>
> >
> > I could document it with a warning when no bootblock is specified, so
> that
> > it's clear what's happening.
> >
> 
> What about using the "-b" flag for the bootblock?

The -b flag takes a parameter, which is a filename/entryname.  It doesn't
make too much sense to copy a lar entry that's not a bootblock into the
bootblock.  That's why I didn't do that.  I guess I could have it fail if
you specified any name but "bootblock".

> 
> >>>>> I think it would be nice if lar would warn you (or stop you) when
> you
> >>>>> try to add a duplicate entry.  Maybe that will be the next patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Myles
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> One thing I didn't check yet: If you specify that compression of a file
> >> should be changed, how does this affect the "zeroes" compression?
> >>
> >
> > It doesn't.  Zeroes is a special case, and doesn't get changed.
> >
> 
> I like that.

Great.

Thanks for your comments,

Myles






More information about the coreboot mailing list