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

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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?

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.

Ian.


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