Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 23:55:43 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:44 PM Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:04:04 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > > Second. I looked at your test results and they don't directly make >> > > sense. dmidecode bypasses the kernel completely or it did last time >> > > I looked so I don't know why you would be using that to test if >> > > something in the kernel is working. >> > >> > That must have been long ago. A recent version of dmidecode (>= 3.0) >> > running on a recent kernel >> > (>= d7f96f97c4031fa4ffdb7801f9aae23e96170a6f, v4.2) will read the DMI >> > data from /sys/firmware/dmi/tables, so it is very much relying on the >> > kernel doing the right thing. If not, it will still try to fallback to >> > reading from /dev/mem directly on certain architectures. You can force >> > that old method with --no-sysfs. >> > >> > Hope that helps, >> >> I don't understand how it possible can help for in-kernel code, like >> DMI quirks in a drivers. > > OK, just ignore me then, probably I misunderstood the point made by > Eric. No. I just haven't dived into this area of code in a long time. It seems a little indirect to use dmidecode as the test to see if the kernel has the pointer to the dmitables, but with the knowledge you provided it seems like a perfectly valid test. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
