Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 14/24] arm/acpi: Prepare EFI system table for Dom0

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 01.03.16 at 03:35, <zhaoshenglong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 2016/2/29 22:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 29.02.16 at 15:25, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> >> Also it doesn't look very nice to me to (ab)use xz's CRC32 code
> >>>> >> here; I don't know who has suggested doing so.
> >>> >  
> >>> > It was suggested by Julien.
> >>> > 
> >>> > I agree that including ../../../common/xz/crc32.c seems a bit fragile
> >>> > but introducing another copy of xz_crc32 seems even worse to me (see
> >>> > http://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=144775375427921&w=2). Maybe you have a
> >>> > better suggestion?
> >> Well, at some point there was talk of ARM not wanting to
> >> ExitBootServices() as early as x86 does. In that case there
> >> would be a CRC32 function among the various boot services
> >> ones.
> >> 
> > At this point, I think it already ExitBootServices() while it's creating
> > Dom0.
> 
> I understand that's the case today, hence my saying "at some
> point there was talk of ...".
> 
> >> The other option would be to have a generic crc32() function,
> >> and maybe make xz use it.
> > Ok, I'll go for this way.
> 
> Well, for the avoidance of doubt: With the code moving into an
> ARM specific file, if Stefano is fine with the xz hack, I certainly
> won't insist on you adding a separate crc32().

Having a generic crc32() function like you suggested would be nicer than
the xz hack. If Shannon is OK with doing that, it would be best.

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