On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Cool - and supposedly this will work in a Mac environment as well? Would
> > > be very nice to avoid fundamentally fragile system specific quirks for
> > > something as fundamental as the EFI runtime memory mapping model ...
> >
> > Apple is the only case where I'd expect there to be an issue, since they
> > only started supporting booting Windows via UEFI on very recent systems.
> > However, unless they're actually sniffing the page tables on UEFI entry,
> > I can't see any way that this could break things???
>
> Agreed - I was susprised to see that the runtime was able to _break_ in
> any way due to 1:1: my assumption was that it can only get better.
>
> But I did not realize that the 1:1 boot flag also changed what was passed
> down, which probably explains the breakages.
Right, in the next version, the boot flag will influence only what's
being passed down.
> I'd even argue to not do this whole boot flag thing at all - just
> standardize on the Windows compatibility model as closely as possible.
This will break the Macs so maybe we can do
efi=no_11_map
so the Macs can still boot but use the 1:1 map by default.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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
