On 07/13/17 14:00, gengdongjiu wrote:
> Laszlo,
> Thank you for your review and comments.
>
>
> On 2017/7/13 18:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 07/12/17 04:08, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
[snip]
>>> --- a/include/qemu/uuid.h
>>> +++ b/include/qemu/uuid.h
>>> @@ -44,6 +44,17 @@ typedef struct {
>>>
>>> #define UUID_NONE "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000"
>>>
>>> +#define UUID_BE(a, b, c, d0, d1, d2, d3, d4, d5, d6, d7) \
>>> +{{{ ((a) >> 24) & 0xff, ((a) >> 16) & 0xff, ((a) >> 8) & 0xff, (a) & 0xff,
>>> \
>>> + ((b) >> 8) & 0xff, (b) & 0xff, \
>>> + ((c) >> 8) & 0xff, (c) & 0xff, \
>>> + (d0), (d1), (d2), (d3), (d4), (d5), (d6), (d7) } } }
>>> +
>>> +/* Platform Memory, this is from UEFI 2.6 N.2.2 Section Descriptor */
>>> +#define UEFI_CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM \
>>> + UUID_BE(0xA5BC1114, 0x6F64, 0x4EDE, 0xB8, 0x63, 0x3E, 0x83, \
>>> + 0xED, 0x7C, 0x83, 0xB1)
>>> +
>>> void qemu_uuid_generate(QemuUUID *out);
>>>
>>> int qemu_uuid_is_null(const QemuUUID *uu);
>>>
>>
>> (e) I think the addition of UUID_BE should be split out to a separate
>> patch; it adds a general facility. It should likely be the very first
>> patch in the series.
> Ok.
>
>>
>> (f) While I think it is justified to have UUID_BE() in "qemu/uuid.h", I
>> think UEFI_CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM is too specific to have here.
>>
>> If UEFI_CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM were *not* a standardized UUID, I would
>> suggest moving it to the implementation ("include/hw/acpi/hest_ghes.h"
>> -- which in turn should be moved to patch #2, see my remark (d)), *plus*
>> I would suggest eliminating the new #include from "acpi-defs.h", see my
>> remark (b).
> understand your idea.
>
>>
>> However, given that this UUID *is* standard, I suggest keeping the (b)
>> #include as you currently propose, and to move the definition of
>> UEFI_CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM to "acpi-defs.h".
> I agree with you.
>
>>
>> I vaguely recall that Michael commented on this previously, but I don't
>> remember what he said. Michael, are you OK with my suggestion?
> Laszlo, I pasted Michael's comments here, as shown below. Michael said the
> definition
> should use build_append_int_noprefix to add data. but I think it may not
> good, becuase
> the section "UEFI_CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM" is runtime recorded as CPER, not a
> ACPI/HEST
> table member, so it is not generated when system boot up.
I agree: the UUID in question is not placed into the ACPI payload /
fw_cfg blobs, it is written into guest memory at runtime, into the
firmware-allocated area, if and when there is a hardware error to report.
Thanks
Laszlo
> On the other hand,UEFI_CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM
> definition is from UEFI spec 2.6, N.2.2 Section Descriptor: {0xA5BC1114,
> 0x6F64, 0x4EDE, {0xB8, 0x63, 0x3E, 0x83, 0xED, 0x7C, 0x83, 0xB1}}.
> if use build_append_int_noprefix to add, may confuse others.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> There's no reason to define these messy one-time use macros.
> They just make it hard to look things up in the spec.
>
>
> You can use build_append_int_noprefix to add data of
> any length in LE format.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Michael,
> what is your suggestion about it? do you agree with Laszlo?
