From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] EFI/early: add /mapbs to map EfiBootServices{Code, Data} Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:55:01 +0100 Message-ID: <55789615.1010801@citrix.com> References: <55770B190200007800082A2C@mail.emea.novell.com> <55770BDF0200007800082A43@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433926580.30003.4.camel@citrix.com> <55781C570200007800082F01@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433928364.30003.21.camel@citrix.com> <557821850200007800082F1F@mail.emea.novell.com> <55787DF7.9020100@citrix.com> <20150610194815.GA5109@l.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Z2m5a-0000ip-L8 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:55:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20150610194815.GA5109@l.oracle.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Roy Franz , xen-devel , Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10/06/15 20:48, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:12:07PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 10/06/15 18:22, Roy Franz wrote: >>>>> I read it backwards and thought this was currently excluding them like >>>>> x86 does. >>>>> >>>>> Am I correct that the stricter x86 behaviour is per the spec, and this >>>>> new option is a workaround for non-compliant systems? >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> If so unless Roy knows of a reason why these should be mapped on ARM be >>>>> default (i.e. the ARM spec differs) I'd be inclined to suggesting the >>>>> default be stricter on ARM too for consistency. >>>> I agree, but would want this to be a separate patch then in any event. >>>> I.e. I'm intending to commit the whole series shortly. >>>> >>>> Jan >>>> >>> The open question regarding the Arm code is whether we want/need this workaround >>> for Arm as well, right? I don't see a reason why firmware bugs >>> regarding memory allocation >>> types would be x86 specific, so we could see firmware broken the same >>> way on arm platforms. >> It would be nice to hope that the arm side was all coded to spec. >> However, the realist in me would expect to see the same kinds of >> mistakes on any architecture. >> >>> Is !map_bs the default? >>> >>> I think "reserve_bs" would be a better name, as I think of it as being >>> 'mapped' when it is added >>> as normal memory to the memory map. I find the terminology in the >>> patch a bit generic/confusing. >> Technically, it is "map boot services code/data for runtime services", >> as it is a workaround for firmware which doesn't correctly avoid using >> __init/__initdata at runtime. >> >> I don't agree that "reserve_bs" is any better, but can't think of a 3rd >> alternative which would be better than either. >> > fix_bs ? > > :) ~Andrew