Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/doc/boot_protocol: Correct the description of "reloc"

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> The fields marked with (reloc) actually are not dedicated for writing,
> but communicating info for relocatable kernel with boot loaders. For
> example:
> 
>     ============    ============
>     Field name:     pref_address
>     Type:           read (reloc)
>     Offset/size:    0x258/8
>     Protocol:       2.10+
>     ============    ============
> 
>     ============    ========================
>     Field name:     code32_start
>     Type:           modify (optional, reloc)
>     Offset/size:    0x214/4
>     Protocol:       2.00+
>     ============    ========================
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> Unless I have incorrect non-native understanding for "fill in", I think
> this is inaccurate.
> 
>  Documentation/x86/boot.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/x86/boot.rst b/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
> index 08a2f100c0e6..a611bf04492d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ bootloader ("modify").
>  
>  All general purpose boot loaders should write the fields marked
>  (obligatory).  Boot loaders who want to load the kernel at a
> -nonstandard address should fill in the fields marked (reloc); other
> +nonstandard address should consult with the fields marked (reloc); other
>  boot loaders can ignore those fields.
>  
>  The byte order of all fields is littleendian (this is x86, after all.)

Well, this documentation is written from the point of view of a 
*bootloader*, not the kernel. So the 'fill in' says that the bootloader 
should write those fields - which is correct, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo