From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] efi: implement generic support for the Memory Attributes table Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:24:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20160413102408.GL2829@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1459355933-13529-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1459355933-13529-5-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20160408155608.GQ2701@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160412195727.GG2829@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Mark Rutland , Russell King - ARM Linux , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Leif Lindholm , Peter Jones , "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Apr, at 10:29:23AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > I think it is implied by the spec that this table and the one returned > by GetMemoryMap() use mutually compatible definitions of > EFI_MEMORY_DESCRIPTOR. However, since our definition of the struct > type is based on version 1, we should perhaps add a check for that > separately That makes sense. Could you send a patch for that on top of 'next' (I've dropped the desc_size check now)?