Seems reasonable to me. Dave Young <dyoung at redhat.com> wrote: >On 10/29/13 at 11:34am, Dave Young wrote: >> On 10/29/13 at 11:05am, Dave Young wrote: >> > On 10/28/13 at 06:53pm, Dave Young wrote: >> > > On 10/28/13 at 10:51am, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 06:45:32PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> > > > > On 10/28/13 at 10:39am, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 06:34:12PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> > > > > > > On 10/28/13 at 10:12am, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > > > > > > > Right, but previously acpi_rsdp was passed >automatically and now it >> > > > > > > > won't be? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yes, it was. I'm removing them in kexec-tools patches for >efi runtime support. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If I upgrade kexec-tools and try to launch an old kernel, I >now need to >> > > > > > add an extra parameter? >> > > > > >> > > > > Yes, it should work by passing the acpi_rsdp= via --append >> > > > >> > > > Yes, that's my point. You're breaking old configurations by >requiring >> > > > the user to pass an additional argument. >> > > >> > > Hmm, I will do some test without this patch, if it works well >it's not >> > > harmful to drop this one. >> > >> > Removing this patch does not work because in this series efi_info >is passed into >> > 2nd kernel thus 2nd kernel will initilize efi but it does not have >related code >> > to handle the converted talbe addresses and it will endter virtual >mode again. >> > >> > I will think about how to solve this problem. >> > >> >> The only way what I can think out is introduce a flag in x86 setup >header. >> Will try this way, the userspace code will use old logic if the >kernel is old. > >Firstly I want to ask opinion from HPA, what do you think about adding >a flag to >xloadflags for this purpose? -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.
