> On 29. nov 2016, at 12:09, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:39:39AM +0200, Toomas Soome wrote:
>>> On 29. nov 2016, at 11:08, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 08:53:51PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>>> 24.11.2016
> On 29. nov 2016, at 11:08, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 08:53:51PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 24.11.2016 23:40, Daniel Kiper ?:
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper
>>> ---
>>> v2 - suggestions/fixes:
>>> - clarify physical address meaning for EFI amd64
>>> mode
> On 28. nov 2016, at 17:46, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>
> Hi Toomas,
>
> Thank you for comments.
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:47:48PM +0200, Toomas Soome wrote:
>> There is still the same confusion as with entry address tag 7; the diagram
>> has
>
> I su
There is still the same confusion as with entry address tag 7; the diagram has
u_virt, yet the text does claim it is physical address. Sure, it is assumed the
identity mapping, but still those names are creating confusion.
Moreover, the EFI32 and EFI64 have different address sizes (32 versus 64
> On 16. märts 2016, at 12:02, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:46:46PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:26:00PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>> Do not pass memory maps to image if it asked for EFI boot services.
>>
>> .. I would change this sen
