On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 13:17 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 07:52 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 04:16 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > From
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 07:52 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 04:16 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > [...]
> > > From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Matt Fleming
> > > Date:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 07:52 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 04:16 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
[...]
From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 13:17 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 07:52 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 04:16 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
[...]
From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 04:16 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> [...]
> > From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Matt Fleming
> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:42:35 +
> > Subject: [PATCH] efi: Make
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
[...]
> From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Matt Fleming
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:42:35 +
> Subject: [PATCH] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI facilities
>
> Originally
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
[...]
From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:42:35 +
Subject: [PATCH] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI facilities
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 04:16 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
[...]
From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:42:35 +
Subject: [PATCH]
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 14:42 -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 02:40 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > From: Matt Fleming
> >
> > Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
> > EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
> > indicates whether or
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 01:54:30PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> I think that here we may need to be checking efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT)
> instead. We are interested in the kernel was booted from EFI and
> that EFI variables support is present. Or is getting efi variable
> part of runtime services?
On 01/21/2013 01:40 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming
Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
bit-native firmware, e.g. 64-bit
On 01/21/2013 02:40 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> From: Matt Fleming
>
> Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
> EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
> indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
> bit-native firmware, e.g.
From: Matt Fleming
Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
bit-native firmware, e.g. 64-bit kernel with 64-bit firmware.
But users actually
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
bit-native firmware, e.g. 64-bit kernel with 64-bit firmware.
On 01/21/2013 02:40 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
bit-native
On 01/21/2013 01:40 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
bit-native
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 01:54:30PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
I think that here we may need to be checking efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT)
instead. We are interested in the kernel was booted from EFI and
that EFI variables support is present. Or is getting efi variable
part of runtime services?
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 14:42 -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/21/2013 02:40 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
indicates
On 01/04/2013 09:15 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming
snip
/*
- * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if possible,
remove
- * EFI-related code altogether.
+
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > From: Matt Fleming
> >
>
> snip
>
> > /*
> > - * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if possible,
> > remove
> > - * EFI-related code altogether.
> > + * We play
Well, *I* am confused as heck. They look like bitmasks, we normally use
decimal numbers for bit numbers as a matter of style.
Matt Fleming wrote:
>On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> > From: Matt Fleming
>> >
>>
>> snip
>>
On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> From: Matt Fleming
>
snip
> /*
> - * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if possible,
> remove
> - * EFI-related code altogether.
> + * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if
> + * possible, remove
On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
snip
/*
- * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if possible,
remove
- * EFI-related code altogether.
+ * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if
+ *
Well, *I* am confused as heck. They look like bitmasks, we normally use
decimal numbers for bit numbers as a matter of style.
Matt Fleming m...@console-pimps.org wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
snip
/*
- * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if possible,
remove
- * EFI-related code altogether.
+ * We play
On 01/04/2013 09:15 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
snip
/*
- * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if possible,
remove
- *
On 01/03/2013 05:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
A machine's EFI facilities are naturally represented by a bitfield.
Nitpick: what you have here is a bitmask, not a bitfield. This is good,
because bitfields are generally frowned upon in a Linux kernel context,
but you may want to revise the
From: Matt Fleming
Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
bit-native firmware, e.g. 64-bit kernel with 64-bit firmware.
But users actually
From: Matt Fleming matt.flem...@intel.com
Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
bit-native firmware, e.g. 64-bit kernel with 64-bit firmware.
On 01/03/2013 05:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
A machine's EFI facilities are naturally represented by a bitfield.
Nitpick: what you have here is a bitmask, not a bitfield. This is good,
because bitfields are generally frowned upon in a Linux kernel context,
but you may want to revise the
30 matches
Mail list logo
