On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:37:38PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 19 Apr, at 09:29:06PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 02:46:50PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > > Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrained to the Xen EFI wrapper, > > > > rather than spreading it further. > > > > > > > > IMO, given reset_system is a *mandatory* function, the Xen wrapper > > > > should provide an implementation. > > > > > > > > I don't see why you can't implement a wrapper that calls the usual Xen > > > > poweroff/reset functions. > > > > > > I realise I'm making a sweeping generalisation, but adding > > > EFI_PARAVIRT is almost always the wrong thing to do. > > > > Why? > > Because it makes paravirt a special case, and there's usually very > little reason to make it special in the EFI code. Special-casing means > more branches, more code paths, a bigger testing matrix and more > complex code. > > EFI_PARAVIRT does have its uses, like for those scenarios where we > don't have a table of function pointers that can be overidden for > paravirt. > > But we do have such a table for ->reset_system(). This is more or less what I expected. Thanks a lot for explanation. Daniel -- 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
