On 02/04/16 at 11:56am, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb, at 07:09:03PM, Dave Young wrote: > > > > Consider the original code path, maybe change it to efi_kexec_setup will > > be better to remind people? Or something else like a wraper function with > > similar name.. > > Possibly. I had considered adding a new efi_enabled() bit for > KEXEC_BOOT, but I'm worried that'll just encourage more uses. > > The best approach is going to be to see whether we can reduce the uses > of efi_setup and the associated special code. Once we've completed > that exercise, we can think about the best name for this variable. Ok, thanks. > > > For building ACPI tables we need do it in kernel instead of kexec-tools > > because of kexec_file_load for secure boot case so we still need a conditional > > code path for kexec.. > > Note that it may not be necessary to build any ACPI tables at all, > provided that things like acpi_get_table() fail gracefully for kexec. > I'm assuming that's the problem that you discovered when writing this > patch. > > And yes, I don't expect you can build the ACPI table from userspace, > but it should at least be possible to do it in setup_boot_parameters() > or so when you setup the EFI table pointers (efi.config_tables), etc. > I think that would be a natural home for this feature. Thing is we support both kexec_load and kexec_file_load, if we do something in kernel loader we will need do same in userspace kexec-tools as well. Another way is we probably can retain the boot service areas for kexec boot, but yes it is another special handling for kexec :(. Is this way better to you? Thanks Dave -- 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
