On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 19:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > The problem there is that you're saying "In theory". We know that > > > Windows doesn't behave this way, so we have no legitimate expectation > > > that it'll work. We know that it doesn't on some Apple hardware. > > > > Fine, you say we need to call SetVirtualAddressMap because windows does, > > I agree, I'm just saying we get additional safety from calling it with > > the 1:1 map ... I don't see what the problem is. > > No. I'm saying that calling it with the 1:1 map is something very > different to the behaviour of Windows, and I'm saying that doing so is > known to cause variable writes on some Apple hardware to stop working. > If we're aiming for maximum compatibility, we need to call > SetVirtualAddressMap() with addresses above the canonicalisation hole. OK, so tell me this problem: it's a new one one me. I think you're saying if we don't call SetVirtualAddressMap with a mapping above a certain value, some Apple system breaks somehow? (how?). James -- 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
