[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131221160416.GD29501@console-pimps.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:06:01 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, hpa@...or.com,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, bp@...en8.de, greg@...ah.com,
toshi.kani@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
msalter@...hat.com, leif.lindholm@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 09/12] efi: passing kexec necessary efi data via
setup_data
On Fri, 20 Dec, at 06:02:19PM, Dave Young wrote:
> @@ -133,6 +133,19 @@ extern void efi_sync_low_kernel_mappings(void);
> extern void efi_setup_page_tables(void);
> extern void __init old_map_region(efi_memory_desc_t *md);
>
> +struct efi_setup_data {
> + u64 fw_vendor;
> + u64 runtime;
> + u64 tables;
> + u64 smbios;
> + u64 reserved[8];
> + efi_memory_desc_t map[0];
> +};
[...]
> +static void get_nr_runtime_map(void)
> +{
> + if (!efi_setup)
> + return;
> +
> + nr_efi_runtime_map = (efi_data_len - sizeof(struct efi_setup_data)) /
> + sizeof(efi_memory_desc_t);
> +}
Do we actually need the 'map' entry in efi_setup_data now that you're
passing it via efi_info (which is much better approach!)? Also, we don't
need the global nr_efi_runtime_map or efi_runtime_map variables now,
right?
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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