grub-0.93 bug

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Thu Jan 8 17:30:15 PST 2004


On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:48:23PM -0500, Archaic wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:21:08PM +0000, Mr Amit Mehrotra wrote:
> > 
> > There is no use complaining to grub people because
> > they have known this problem for years and still
> > haven't corrected this.
> 
> First of all there is nothing broken, so there is nothing to correct.
> Secondly, just as a guess, do you think there are more machines running
> 1GB or more in them or more machines running under 1GB. After think
> about that, then ask yourself which method *should* be the default and
> which should require a config switch.

Ok, it appears there is indeed a problem, albeit one that bites only very
few people.

As mentioned in the bug report:

http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=737

I've been using the "--no-mem-option" for years without issue. It just feels
wrong to me that grub should try and second guess the kernel. So rather than
disable the functionality completely as suggested by the OP (the auto mem=
functionality must be useful for something??), I think it would be safer to
just stick "--no-mem-option" into the book which achieves exactly the same
thing by disabling it at runtime.

If there are no major objections, I'll implement this and close the bz.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list