[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46CA61DD.4010102@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:54:05 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86_64 EFI runtime service support
Huang, Ying wrote:
>
> I think the "next" field can be u32 instead of u64. Because the linked
> list of struct setup_data is prepared by bootloader, which can control
> the memory location.
>
That's making some pretty serious assumptions on future boot loaders and
environments.
> Previously, I think the "zero page" is not external formally, so we can
> ignore the user. But it is used by some bootloaders. So your proposal
> may be better, especially for these bootloaders.
>
> I think something others need to be done:
>
> - Increase the version number of standard boot protocol.
> - Add the contents of zero page into standard boot protocol document as
> a optional part for 32-bit entry (and 64-bit entry?).
Probably, yes.
> As for the magic number in zero page, do you think it should be used
> only by 16-bit kernel setup code?
Absolutely not.
-hpa
-
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