lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071026123128.4fbe9568@the-village.bc.nu> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:31:28 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli@...ux.intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 -v4] x86_64 EFI runtime service support: EFI basic runtime service support On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:03:11 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 18:09 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > EFI runtime > > > services initialization are implemented in efi.c. Some x86_64 > > > specifics are worth noting here. On x86_64, parameters passed to UEFI > > > firmware services need to follow the UEFI calling convention. For this > > > purpose, a set of functions named lin2win<x> (<x> is the number of > > > parameters) are implemented. EFI function calls are wrapped before > > > calling the firmware service. > > > > Why needs this to be called lin2win? We do not call Windows, we call > > EFI services, so please use a naming convention which is related to > > the functionality of the code. > > > > > + * > > > + * Function calling ABI conversion from SYSV to Windows for x86_64 > > > > Again, these are wrappers to access EFI and not Windows. > > EFI uses the Windows x86_64 calling convention. The lin2win may be a > more general naming convention that can be used for some other code (the > NDISwrapper?) in the future. Do you agree? The SYSV description is wrong as well. SYSV has no calling convention. I think you mean iABI or iBCS2 ? Whats wrong with following the pattern of other calls like syscall(...) and just having eficall() ? Alan. - 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