linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/acpi: add retrieval function for rsdp address

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gr7Jd-1dOD_DTRQDCX7ON68O1KJ9ioAJAnwBYm2cEdZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:02:36 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/acpi: add retrieval function for rsdp address

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:21 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>> On 26/01/18 19:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>>>> Add a function to get the address of the RSDP table. Per default use a
>>>> __weak annotated function being a nop.
>>>
>>> The problem with weak functions that we can't have more than one
>>> implementation per kernel while we would like to built several code
>>> paths.
>>>
>>> I have stumbled on the similar stuff and realize that.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, one of the solution is to have an additional struct under
>>> x86_init to alternate ACPI related stuff.
>>
>> I think we can go that route when another user of that interface is
>> appearing.
>
> Why not to establish the struct? At least this route I would like to
> go with [1].
>
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/17/834

Maybe I'm a bit slow today, but care to explain what exactly you mean?