[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47221D2A.2050304@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:00:26 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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
Alan Cox wrote:
>>> 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() ?
Either that (which is basically his lin2win6), or use wrapper-generators
like we used to do for system calls -- the latter will produce more
efficient code. I don't think it matters.
-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