Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:54:05 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86_64 EFI runtime service support |
| |
Huang, Ying wrote: > > I think the "next" field can be u32 instead of u64. Because the linked > list of struct setup_data is prepared by bootloader, which can control > the memory location. >
That's making some pretty serious assumptions on future boot loaders and environments.
> Previously, I think the "zero page" is not external formally, so we can > ignore the user. But it is used by some bootloaders. So your proposal > may be better, especially for these bootloaders. > > I think something others need to be done: > > - Increase the version number of standard boot protocol. > - Add the contents of zero page into standard boot protocol document as > a optional part for 32-bit entry (and 64-bit entry?).
Probably, yes.
> As for the magic number in zero page, do you think it should be used > only by 16-bit kernel setup code?
Absolutely not.
-hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |