* Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 11:15, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The x86 boot image generation tool assign a default value to startup_64
> > > and subsequently parses the actual value from zoffset.h but it never
> > > actually uses the value anywhere. So remove this code.
> > >
> > > This change has no impact on the resulting bzImage binary.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/boot/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > arch/x86/boot/tools/build.c | 3 ---
> > > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Note that this patch conflicted with a recent upstream cleanup commit:
> >
> > e78d334a5470 ("x86/boot: Mark global variables as static")
> >
> > It was trivial to resolve, but please double-check the result once I push
> > out the new tip:x86/boot tree.
> >
>
> Ehm, I suspect something is going on with your workflow - did you
> apply my patches out of order perhaps? (/me notes that you seem to
> have omitted patches #7
Indeed: patch #7 was not in my inbox - nor is it in my lkml folder:
664225 Sep 12 Ard Biesheuvel | ├─>[PATCH v2 04/15] x86/boot: Remove the 'bugger off' message
664226 Sep 12 Ard Biesheuvel | ├─>[PATCH v2 05/15] x86/boot: Omit compression buffer from PE/COFF image memory footprint
664227 Sep 12 Ard Biesheuvel | ├─>[PATCH v2 06/15] x86/boot: Drop redundant code setting the root device
664228 Sep 12 Ard Biesheuvel | ├─>[PATCH v2 08/15] x86/boot: Drop references to startup_64
664229 Sep 12 Ard Biesheuvel | ├─>[PATCH v2 10/15] x86/boot: Define setup size in linker script
664230 Sep 12 Ard Biesheuvel | ├─>[PATCH v2 12/15] x86/boot: Construct PE/COFF .text section from assembler
664231 Sep 12 Ard Biesheuvel | ├─>[PATCH v2 13/15] x86/boot: Drop PE/COFF .reloc section
664232 Sep 12 Ard Biesheuvel | ├─>[PATCH v2 14/15] x86/boot: Split off PE/COFF .data section
:-/
Very weird - could it have gotten lost in the sending process, on your
side?
Thanks,
Ingo
