[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:11:54 +0800
From: "huang ying" <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
"Randy Dunlap" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
"Chandramouli Narayanan" <mouli@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86_64 EFI support -v3: EFI document
On 8/8/07, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> > Instead, elilo collects the needed information
> > defined in include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h itself,
>
> That's nasty. I must have missed when we declared this a public ABI.
> It's not really designed to be one. Was there public discussion on this?
Maybe What I said is not clear and correct. In fact, the elilo follows
the boot protocol defined in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt, just
not uses arch/(i386|x86_64)/boot/setup.S to collect the information,
but collects them by elilo itself. Information in
include/asm-x86_64/bootsetup.h is just a part of that in
Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt.
> I expect we'll have some grief from this in the future.
>
> If it's really done this way we should at least add a version
> number and a boot loader ID like the standard boot protocol
> so that bugs later can be worked around. Also some Documentation
> would be good. And comments. But discussion first.
>
Is what defined in Documentation/i386/zero-page.txt the standard boot
protocol. If it is, the elilo follows it. My previous expressing is
not clear and correct.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists