[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e094a1cf-6bf2-1e8a-94c7-47767d66138e@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:55:57 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Cc: ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
bp@...en8.de, corbet@....net, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, eric.snowberg@...cle.com,
jgross@...e.com, kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
mingo@...hat.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, ross.philipson@...cle.com,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] x86/boot: Introduce the kernel_info.setup_type_max
On 2019-10-24 04:48, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> This field contains maximal allowed type for setup_data.
>
> Now bump the setup_header version in arch/x86/boot/header.S.
Please don't bump the protocol revision here, otherwise we would create
a very odd pseudo-revision of the protocol: 2.15 without SETUP_INDIRECT
support, should patch 3/3 end up getting reverted.
(It is possible to detect, of course, but I feel pretty sure in saying
that bootloaders won't get it right.)
Other than that:
Reviewed-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@...or.com>
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists