Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86_64 EFI runtime service support

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Huang, Ying wrote:
> 
> I think the "next" field can be u32 instead of u64. Because the linked
> list of struct setup_data is prepared by bootloader, which can control
> the memory location.
> 

That's making some pretty serious assumptions on future boot loaders and
environments.

> Previously, I think the "zero page" is not external formally, so we can
> ignore the user. But it is used by some bootloaders. So your proposal
> may be better, especially for these bootloaders.
> 
> I think something others need to be done:
> 
> - Increase the version number of standard boot protocol.
> - Add the contents of zero page into standard boot protocol document as
> a optional part for 32-bit entry (and 64-bit entry?).

Probably, yes.

> As for the magic number in zero page, do you think it should be used
> only by 16-bit kernel setup code?

Absolutely not.

	-hpa