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

[hpa]

On September 26, 2019 1:20:02 AM PDT, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 9/26/19 3:58 PM, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On September 26, 2019 12:55:51 AM PDT, Cao jin
><caoj.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 9/26/19 2:01 PM, Ingo Molnar 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Take pref_address or relocatable_kernel for example, they have type:
>>> read (reloc), does boot loader need to write them? I don't see grub
>>> does
>>> this at least.
>> 
>> Read means the boot later reads them.
>> 
>
>Sorry I don't know what is going wrong in my mind. For me, if
>pref_address has "read (reloc)", base on the current document, it means
>boot loader will read it and also write it, which is conflicting. And
>the purpose of pref_address should just inform boot loader that kernel
>whats itself to be loaded at certain address, it don't want to be
>written.

read (reloc) means it is information for the boot loader to read, but that it can ignore it completely if it does not want to relocate the kernel.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.