Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI facilities
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Fri Jan 04 2013 - 11:18:24 EST
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 <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.fleming@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > /*
>> > - * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if
>> > - * EFI-related code altogether.
>> > + * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if
>> > + * possible, remove EFI-related code altogether.
>> > */
>> > +#define EFI_BOOT 0x00000001 /* Were we booted from EFI? */
>> > +#define EFI_SYSTEM_TABLES 0x00000002 /* Can we use EFI system
>> > +#define EFI_CONFIG_TABLES 0x00000004 /* Can we use EFI config
>> > +#define EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES 0x00000004 /* Can we use runtime
>> > +#define EFI_MEMMAP 0x00000008 /* Can we use EFI memory map? */
>> > +#define EFI_64BIT 0x00000010 /* Is the firmware 64-bit? */
>> > +
>> Your use of test_bit() and set_bit() imply that these macros should
>> bit numbers, not bit masks. It'll work until you define a mask with
>> integer value greater then 31.
>They're not intended to be bitmasks in the sense that no two bits are
>set in each constant (and I am aware of the upper limit).
>I have no problem changing the above values to bit numbers if that
>be less confusing.
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/