Re: bzImage 2.12

[H. Peter Anvin]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.On 01/27/2013 11:10 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 11:02 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > This is intentionally a protocol only patch, which may be possible to
> > push into 3.8 as an urgent patch.  David, if I understand our
> > discussions right it might be better to not export XLF_EFI_HANDOFF_32
> > at this time?
>
> That won't stop broken bootloaders from jumping to $handover_offset
> anyway. Anyone who was daft enough to implement EFI boot stub in their
> bootloader *despite* its obvious brokenness, rather than insisting on
> fixing it before it could be considered usable, will still be jumping
> into hyperspace. I have little sympathy for them, but I'm told we need
> to care.

At the moment I'm concerned with a new updated bootloader, which knows 
the 2.12 protocol, encountering an old kernel.

> It'd probably be better to just mark CONFIG_EFI_STUB as 'depends on
> BROKEN' for 32-bit.
>
> Or, and perhaps this is heresy, merge the patches which bloody fix it?

I think we can probably do that, since it doesn't affect anything 
non-broken at this point.  I'm sorting out what can be done for 3.8 vs 
3.9 at this point.

Anyway, as you can tell I'm spending this weekend working for a reason.

It turns out the patch I sent out doesn't actually build.  Here is an 
updated patch.  Can I get your ack for this so I can do the appropriate 
hacks to your and Yinghai's patchsets?

	-hpa

--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.