Hi Jerry,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:57 AM, <jerry.hoemann@xxxxxx> wrote:
> I will still point out that as currently used, efi_reserve_boot_services
> is wrong. A work around for firmware bugs on one platform shouldn't be
> breaking platforms that don't have that bug. Its just much less likely
> to cause problems with higher crash kernel allocation.
Wrong in what way exactly?
We need efi_reserve_boot_services on _some_ platforms and it's only practical
to do it on all platforms to be able to boot a generic kernel. Likewise, it
would be more practical to fix crashkernel on all platforms instead of adding a
new code path in the kernel that won't receive as much testing coverage (we
need to reserve boot services by default).
And frankly, I don't understand why 'violating the UEFI specification' is even
brought up. It's shipped firmware that matters here no matter how broken it
is. As long as there's a reasonable solution for crashkernel that works on all
platforms, we should go for it instead of special-casing for 'proper firmware'
because it makes testing the kernel more difficult.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
