On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 01:24:03PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 09/04/2012 12:45 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> > >>There are some platforms which have bugs in this area, so there are > >>other reasons to defer freeing up boot memory until as late in the > >>boot process as we can possibly get away with. > >> > >>free_initmem() is presuambly the place that makes most sense. > > > >You're suggesting a call from free_initmem() to > >efi_free_boot_services()? Or, from init_post() right before the call to > >free_initmem()? > > free_initmem() is arch-specific, so probably the latter. OK, will do. > >>This > >>is EFI-specific but not x86-specific, let's not commingle those > >>concepts, please... > > > >init/main.c already calls the x86-specific efi_enter_virtual_mode > >(defined in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c), and I split the call to the > >x86-specific efi_free_boot_services out of that. Neither of those > >functions exists on non-x86 platforms, and thus I mirrored the #ifdef > >currently wrapped around efi_enter_virtual_mode for the new call to > >efi_free_boot_services. While it might make sense for that code to > >exist on non-x86 EFI platforms, it currently doesn't. At best, I could > >add static inline stubs to linux/efi.h for those functions to avoid the > >ifdefs, but as far as I can tell the same issue applies to quite a few > >more functions in efi.h. > > > >Would you like me to add the static inline stubs for the couple of > >functions called from init/main.c, or leave the #ifdefs? > > > > I think that would really help clean things up. Fair enough. I'll send v2 shortly. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
