Re: [PATCH] Be explicit about what the x86 0x020c boot parameter version requires.

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 03/06/2013 10:00 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> This should help avoid making the incorrect change in non-compliant
> bootloaders.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/x86/boot.txt             | 5 +++--
>  arch/x86/include/asm/bootparam_utils.h | 7 +++++++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/x86/boot.txt b/Documentation/x86/boot.txt
> index 3840b6f..72702db 100644
> --- a/Documentation/x86/boot.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/x86/boot.txt
> @@ -1110,7 +1110,8 @@ firmware, 'table' is the EFI system table - these are the first two
>  arguments of the "handoff state" as described in section 2.3 of the
>  UEFI specification. 'bp' is the boot loader-allocated boot params.
>  
> -The boot loader *must* fill out the following fields in bp,
> +The boot loader *must* zero the entirity of bp, and then fill out the
> +following fields:
>  
>      o hdr.code32_start
>      o hdr.cmd_line_ptr
> @@ -1118,4 +1119,4 @@ The boot loader *must* fill out the following fields in bp,
>      o hdr.ramdisk_image (if applicable)
>      o hdr.ramdisk_size  (if applicable)
>  

Wait a bloody minute here... I seem to have managed to miss something big.

Matt, should we not be copying the setup part of the structure just as
we do for the normal 32/64-bit protocol?  If not, why not?


-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.