From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1YSm7B-0007WA-0Q for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:39:57 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48362) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YSm78-0007UJ-FR for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:39:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YSm73-0004Xp-FG for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:39:54 -0500 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:16950) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YSm73-0004Xd-A1 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:39:49 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,681,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="240906790" Message-ID: <1425386385.24959.150.camel@citrix.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] x86: multiboot2 protocol support From: Ian Campbell To: Daniel Kiper Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:39:45 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20150303123634.GB27971@olila.local.net-space.pl> References: <1422640462-28103-1-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com> <1425384635.24959.136.camel@citrix.com> <20150303123634.GB27971@olila.local.net-space.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DLP: MIA2 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 66.165.176.63 Cc: jgross@suse.com, grub-devel@gnu.org, keir@xen.org, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, roy.franz@linaro.org, ning.sun@intel.com, david.vrabel@citrix.com, jbeulich@suse.com, phcoder@gmail.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, qiaowei.ren@intel.com, richard.l.maliszewski@intel.com, gang.wei@intel.com, fu.wei@linaro.org X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:39:55 -0000 On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:36 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 12:10:35PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 18:54 +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > > xen/arch/x86/Makefile | 17 ++-- > > > xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile | 3 +- > > > xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S | 291 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > xen/arch/x86/boot/reloc.c | 219 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > > xen/arch/x86/dmi_scan.c | 4 +- > > > xen/arch/x86/domain_page.c | 2 +- > > > xen/arch/x86/e820.c | 29 ++---- > > > xen/arch/x86/efi/Makefile | 12 +-- > > > xen/arch/x86/efi/efi-boot.h | 66 +++++++++++-- > > > xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c | 41 -------- > > > xen/arch/x86/mpparse.c | 4 +- > > > xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 30 +++--- > > > xen/arch/x86/shutdown.c | 3 +- > > > xen/arch/x86/time.c | 2 +- > > > xen/arch/x86/x86_64/asm-offsets.c | 8 ++ > > > xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S | 2 - > > > xen/common/efi/boot.c | 441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- > > > xen/common/efi/runtime.c | 11 ++- > > > xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c | 2 +- > > > xen/include/xen/efi.h | 6 +- > > > xen/include/xen/multiboot2.h | 169 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 21 files changed, 1018 insertions(+), 344 deletions(-) > > > > From the diffstat I'm not sure: is there any ARM impact I should worry > > about reviewing? Any patches in particular my feedback is needed on? > > There are not any functional changes in ARM here. There are some small > changes which are needed to make new x86 stuff coexist with ARM. > Additionally, I thought that you are still interested in x86 things. Not totally disinterested in x86 things, but not especially interested in x86/EFI/multiboot unless I have to be. > Am I right? If you do not have a time right now ignore this patch series. > New thing will appear in 3-4 weeks. OK, thanks. > Or if you completely not interested in > that stuff just drop me a line and I will drop you from distribution list. If you could just CC me on the bits which impact ARM (or generic code) that would be ok, but otherwise I can cope with ignoring irrelevant parts of a series. Thanks, Ian.