[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191104151609.k4qxlw4sbqvld357@tomti.i.net-space.pl>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:16:09 +0100
From: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
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 Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:55:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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>
I have just sent v5. Please take a look.
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists