Re: [PATCH v4 07/12] efi: passing kexec necessary efi data via setup_data

[Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>]

On Wed, 27 Nov, at 12:52:37PM, Dave Young wrote:
> To make it more readable, I will change them like below:
> 
> p = efi_runtime_map;
> md = efi_setup->map;
> for (i = 0; i < nr_efi_runtime_map; i++) {
> 	[...]
> 	md += 1;
> }
 
Actually, md++ is the canonical way to write this.

> > 
> > > +		efi_map_region_fixed(md);
> > > +		size = md->num_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > +		end = md->phys_addr + size;
> > > +
> > > +		systab = (u64) (unsigned long) efi_phys.systab;
> > > +		if (md->phys_addr <= systab && systab < end) {
> > > +			systab += md->virt_addr - md->phys_addr;
> > > +			efi.systab =
> > > +				(efi_system_table_t *) (unsigned long) systab;
> > > +		}
> > > +		if (efi_runtime_map) {
> > > +			memcpy(p, md, memmap.desc_size);
> > > +			p += memmap.desc_size;
> > > +		}
> > 
> > Is this if () needed? Is it possible to enter the loop and have
> > 'efi_runtime_map' be NULL?
> 
> Yes, it is needed. if efi_runtime_map kmalloc fails I only print error, do not
> return so kernel can still boot, just kexec on efi will not work that has been
> put in the error message.
 
OK. On second thought, is there any way to turn the above code into a
call to efi_save_runtime_map()? Because you've basically duplicated that
code and I can definitely envisage the two code paths fragmenting over
time, e.g. when someone makes changes to one but not the other.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec