Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 12/19] efi: introduce EFI_RS to ease control on runtime services usage

[Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:12:32AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.08.16 at 01:04, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Apart from the question of this probably better getting merged with
> the previous patch ...
>
> > --- a/xen/common/efi/boot.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/efi/boot.c
> > @@ -936,6 +936,10 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE 
> > *SystemTable)
> >
> >      __set_bit(EFI_BOOT, &efi.flags);
> >
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARM /* Disabled until runtime services implemented. */
> > +    __set_bit(EFI_RS, &efi.flags);
> > +#endif
>
> ... this needs to be paralleled by a __clear_bit() when "efi=no-rs"
> was given (and then efi_rs_enable) should go away. Oh, looks
> like that's the next patch, but I'd then again question the split.

Do you suggest that patches 11-13 should be merged into one thing?
If it is OK for you I can do that.

> > --- a/xen/include/xen/efi.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/efi.h
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> >  struct efi {
> >      unsigned long flags;        /* Bit fields representing available EFI 
> > features/properties */
> >  #define EFI_BOOT   0       /* Were we booted from EFI? */
> > +#define EFI_RS             2       /* Can we use runtime services? */
>
> Why is this not the sequentially next number?

I wish that EFI_LOADER (added in patch 16) has number 1 (next to EFI_BOOT).

Daniel

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