On 03/06/2013 10:00 AM, Peter Jones wrote: > This should help avoid making the incorrect change in non-compliant > bootloaders. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjo...@redhat.com> > --- > Documentation/x86/boot.txt | 5 +++-- > arch/x86/include/asm/bootparam_utils.h | 7 +++++++ > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/x86/boot.txt b/Documentation/x86/boot.txt > index 3840b6f..72702db 100644 > --- a/Documentation/x86/boot.txt > +++ b/Documentation/x86/boot.txt > @@ -1110,7 +1110,8 @@ firmware, 'table' is the EFI system table - these are > the first two > arguments of the "handoff state" as described in section 2.3 of the > UEFI specification. 'bp' is the boot loader-allocated boot params. > > -The boot loader *must* fill out the following fields in bp, > +The boot loader *must* zero the entirity of bp, and then fill out the > +following fields: > > o hdr.code32_start > o hdr.cmd_line_ptr > @@ -1118,4 +1119,4 @@ The boot loader *must* fill out the following fields in > bp, > o hdr.ramdisk_image (if applicable) > o hdr.ramdisk_size (if applicable) >
Wait a bloody minute here... I seem to have managed to miss something big. Matt, should we not be copying the setup part of the structure just as we do for the normal 32/64-bit protocol? If not, why not? -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/