* Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > except that I don't think
> > the condition on 64-bit makes any sense:
> >
> > + if (!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP) && efi_enabled(EFI_64BIT)) {
> >
> > I can see us being nervous wrt. backported patches, but is there any strong
> > reason
> > to not follow this up with a third (non-backported) patch that changes this
> > to:
> >
> > + if (!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)) {
> >
> > for v4.4?
> >
>
> The 32-bit side essentially implements the old memmap only, which is the the
> bottom-up version. So old memmap will be implied by 32-bit but not set in the
> EFI flags, resulting in the reverse enumeration being used with the bottom-up
> mapping logic. The net result of that is that we create the same problem for
> 32-bit that we are trying to solve for 64-bit, i.e., the regions will end up
> in
> reverse order in the VA mapping.
>
> To deobfuscate this particular conditional, we could set EFI_OLD_MEMMAP
> unconditionally on 32-bit x86. Or we could reshuffle variables and
> conditionals
> in various other way.
Setting EFI_OLD_MEMMAP would be fine, if doing that has no bad side effects.
> [...] I am not convinced that the overall end result will be any better
> though.
That's not true, we change an obscure, implicit dependency on 32-bit detail to
an
explicit EFI_OLD_MEMMAP flag that shows exactly what's happening. That's a
clear
improvement.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
