Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] EFI/early: add /mapbs to map EfiBootServices{Code, Data}

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 10.06.15 at 11:26, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 10:15 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 10.06.15 at 10:56, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 14:53 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> 
>> >> To help on certain platforms to run.
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> > 
>> > To be effective (or at least consistent) on ARM, would we also want to
>> > change its efi_process_memory_map_bootinfo:
>> >         if ( desc_ptr->Type == EfiConventionalMemory
>> >              || desc_ptr->Type == EfiBootServicesCode
>> >              || desc_ptr->Type == EfiBootServicesData )
>> > to include a check on map_bs?
>> 
>> I'm not convinced, but I also don't know the history of why boot
>> services areas are being included here in the first place - Roy?
>> I.e. if the checks weren't there already, I'd agree that an addition
>> similar to the other ones would be needed here, but with the x86
>> side getting relaxed I don't see why you would want to tighten the
>> ARM side at the same time.
> 
> I read it backwards and thought this was currently excluding them like
> x86 does.
> 
> Am I correct that the stricter x86 behaviour is per the spec, and this
> new option is a workaround for non-compliant systems?

Yes.

> If so unless Roy knows of a reason why these should be mapped on ARM be
> default (i.e. the ARM spec differs) I'd be inclined to suggesting the
> default be stricter on ARM too for consistency.

I agree, but would want this to be a separate patch then in any event.
I.e. I'm intending to commit the whole series shortly.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel