From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.136] helo=mail.zytor.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fx1IO-0003hk-NS for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 02:42:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/boot: Add bit fields into xloadflags for 5-level kernel checking References: <20180829141624.13985-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180829141624.13985-2-bhe@redhat.com> From: "H. Peter Anvin" Message-ID: <6ea94875-ae07-6220-eb3e-d3f830cdac03@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 19:41:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180829141624.13985-2-bhe@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Baoquan He , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Cc: x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I don't understand why there is any reason not to always enter the target kernel in 4-level mode. There certainly is no point whatsoever in having two xloadflags: the only thing that could possibly matter is whether or not the kernel in question *can* be entered in 5-level mode should that ever be necessary. -hpa _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec