From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751187Ab3KYFaF (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:30:05 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29379 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750822Ab3KYFaB (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:30:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:28:58 +0800 From: Dave Young To: Borislav Petkov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, hpa@zytor.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, horms@verge.net.au, kexec@lists.infradead.org, greg@kroah.com, matt@console-pimps.org, toshi.kani@hp.com Subject: Re: [patch 5/9 v3] efi: export more efi table variable to sysfs Message-ID: <20131125052858.GA6330@dhcp-16-126.nay.redhat.com> References: <20131121061704.363730447@dhcp-16-126.nay.redhat.com> <20131121061754.887381332@dhcp-16-126.nay.redhat.com> <20131121165742.GN26009@pd.tnic> <20131122024850.GC3874@dhcp-16-126.nay.redhat.com> <20131123131518.GC24148@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131123131518.GC24148@pd.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/23/13 at 02:15pm, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:48:50AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > efi.config_table = (unsigned long)efi.systab->tables; > > > efi.fw_vendor = (unsigned long)efi.systab->fw_vendor; > > > efi.runtime = (unsigned long)efi.systab->runtime; > > > > Hmm, UEFI spec mentions the them like below so I use the order: > > I'm sure by now you know you should not really trust the UEFI spec, or > any other spec for that matter :) > > > Several fields of the EFI System Table must be converted from > > physical pointers to virtual pointers using the ConvertPointer() > > service. These fields include FirmwareVendor, RuntimeServices, > > and ConfigurationTable. > > > > But since you like the reverse I can change it in next version. > > The reverse was simply a suggestion. The vertical alignment was more > what I aimed at because it makes this chunk much more readable IMO. > Got your point about alignment, will update. -- Thanks Dave