[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <560B3327.9020801@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:56:07 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/efi: Don't pad between EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME
regions
On 09/29/2015 07:36 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> That's a pretty good summary for x86. I think specifically the reason
> we map the EFI memmap entries "backwards" (entry N has higher VA than
> entry N+1) is because the code was easier to write that way, but
> you'll know better than me ;-)
>
There were two reasons:
1. The code was easier to write.
2. Windows did it that way.
Windows apparently broke and was changed due to this feature, too.
-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