[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] A few EFI code questions
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:35:01AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 03.12.14 at 22:02, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hey, > > > > 1) Why is there in EFI code so many functions (e.g. efi_start(), > > efi_arch_edd(), ...) with local variables declared as a static? > > Though some of them have also regular local variables. I do not > > why it was decided that some of them must be the static and > > some of do not. It is a bit confusing. As I can see there is > > only one place which have to have local static (place_string()). > > Other seems to me as thing to save space on the stack but I do > > not think we need that. According to UEFI spec there will be > > "128 KiB or more of available stack space" when system runs in > > boot services mode. It is a lot of space. So, I think we can > > safely convert most of local static variables to normal local > > variables. Am I right? > > No. Consider what code results when you e.g. make an EFI_GUID > instance non-static. It could be quite big... > > 2) I am going to add EDID support to EFI code. Should it be x86 > > specific code or common one? As I can see EDID is defined as > > part of GOP so I think that EDID code should be placed in > > xen/common/efi/boot.c. > > Yes. Granted! > > 3) Should not we change xen/arch/*/efi/efi-boot.h to > > xen/arch/*/efi/efi-boot.c? efi-boot.h contains more > > code than definitions, declarations and short static > > functions. So, I think that it is more regular *.c file > > than header file. > > That's a matter of taste - I'd probably have made it .c too, but > didn't mind it being .h as done by Roy (presumably on the basis > that #include directives are preferred to have .h files as their > operands). The only thing I regret is that I didn't ask for the > pointless efi- prefix to be dropped. As I can see a few people people agree to some extent with my suggestion. Great! Sadly if we wish .c file than simple boot.c (as Jan suggested we can drop efi- prefix) conflicts with exiting boot.c link. Is efi-boot.c OK? Or maybe boot-arch.c? boot.h is OK for sure. Which one do you prefer? Do you have better ideas? Daniel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |