Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/doc/boot_protocol: Correct the description of "reloc"

[hpa]

On September 25, 2019 11:01:39 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>* Cao jin <caoj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The fields marked with (reloc) actually are not dedicated for
>writing,
>> but communicating info for relocatable kernel with boot loaders. For
>> example:
>> 
>>     ============    ============
>>     Field name:     pref_address
>>     Type:           read (reloc)
>>     Offset/size:    0x258/8
>>     Protocol:       2.10+
>>     ============    ============
>> 
>>     ============    ========================
>>     Field name:     code32_start
>>     Type:           modify (optional, reloc)
>>     Offset/size:    0x214/4
>>     Protocol:       2.00+
>>     ============    ========================
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Unless I have incorrect non-native understanding for "fill in", I
>think
>> this is inaccurate.
>> 
>>  Documentation/x86/boot.rst | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/x86/boot.rst b/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
>> index 08a2f100c0e6..a611bf04492d 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/x86/boot.rst
>> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ bootloader ("modify").
>>  
>>  All general purpose boot loaders should write the fields marked
>>  (obligatory).  Boot loaders who want to load the kernel at a
>> -nonstandard address should fill in the fields marked (reloc); other
>> +nonstandard address should consult with the fields marked (reloc);
>other
>>  boot loaders can ignore those fields.
>>  
>>  The byte order of all fields is littleendian (this is x86, after
>all.)
>
>Well, this documentation is written from the point of view of a 
>*bootloader*, not the kernel. So the 'fill in' says that the bootloader
>
>should write those fields - which is correct, right?
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

This is correct.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.