On 16/07/14 15:34, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul, at 08:44:34AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Do we know what the Windows bootloader does? I thought it did use the
EFI File Protocol?
Good question. I'm not sure what the answer is, I'll try and find some
time to take a look.
I'm in the middle
On Tue, 15 Jul, at 08:44:34AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Do we know what the Windows bootloader does? I thought it did use the
> EFI File Protocol?
Good question. I'm not sure what the answer is, I'll try and find some
time to take a look.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
-
On 07/15/2014 08:10 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> Going forward, I suspect any attempts to use the EFI File Protocol are
> going to result in this kind of breakage, and that the only thing that
> can be relied upon is the Disk I/O Protocol.
>
Do we know what the Windows bootloader does? I thought
On 15/07/14 16:10, Matt Fleming wrote:
Going forward, I suspect any attempts to use the EFI File Protocol are
going to result in this kind of breakage, and that the only thing that
can be relied upon is the Disk I/O Protocol.
But doing Disk I/O would necessitate adding the in-kernel FAT driver t
On Fri, 11 Jul, at 08:40:29AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with the buffer - whether it's a case
> of not being able to access it properly or somehing buggy in the EFI
> code for reading files. No fault occurs when reading into it, it just
> doesn't contain the correc
On Thu, 10 Jul, at 11:00:06AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> Oh, no.
>
> so efi could allocate buffer above 4g but can not access it?
I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with the buffer - whether it's a case
of not being able to access it properly or somehing buggy in the EFI
code for reading files. No fa
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun, at 03:28:19PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jun, at 12:23:41PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > For boot efi kernel directly without bootloader.
>> > If the kernel support XLF_CAN_BE_LOADED_ABOVE_4G, we should
>> > not limit initrd
On Wed, 18 Jun, at 03:28:19PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun, at 12:23:41PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > For boot efi kernel directly without bootloader.
> > If the kernel support XLF_CAN_BE_LOADED_ABOVE_4G, we should
> > not limit initrd under hdr->initrd_add_max.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yinghai
On Sat, 14 Jun, at 12:23:41PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> For boot efi kernel directly without bootloader.
> If the kernel support XLF_CAN_BE_LOADED_ABOVE_4G, we should
> not limit initrd under hdr->initrd_add_max.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
>
> ---
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 14 +++
For boot efi kernel directly without bootloader.
If the kernel support XLF_CAN_BE_LOADED_ABOVE_4G, we should
not limit initrd under hdr->initrd_add_max.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu
---
arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 14 +++---
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index:
10 matches
Mail list logo