On Sun, 03 Nov, at 08:31:15PM, Dave Young wrote:
> Hi, Matt
>
> How should I handle this problem, would you take above commit or rebase efi
> next branch?
Dave, could you base your patches against the EFI 'master' branch? I've
rebased that branch on v3.12, which includes commit 700870119f49
On Sun, 03 Nov, at 08:31:15PM, Dave Young wrote:
Hi, Matt
How should I handle this problem, would you take above commit or rebase efi
next branch?
Dave, could you base your patches against the EFI 'master' branch? I've
rebased that branch on v3.12, which includes commit 700870119f49 (x86,
On 11/01/13 at 12:50pm, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Nov, at 11:35:08AM, Dave Young wrote:
> > > The conflict is caused by missing one commit in matt's efi next tree:
> > >
> > > commit 700870119f49084da004ab588ea2b799689efaf7
> > > Author: Josh Boyer
> > > Date: Thu Apr 18 07:51:34 2013
On 11/01/13 at 11:25am, Dave Young wrote:
> On 10/31/13 at 05:25pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov
> >
> > We map the EFI regions needed for runtime services non-contiguously,
> > with preserved alignment on virtual addresses starting from -4G down
> > for a total max space of
On 11/01/13 at 11:25am, Dave Young wrote:
On 10/31/13 at 05:25pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
From: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
We map the EFI regions needed for runtime services non-contiguously,
with preserved alignment on virtual addresses starting from -4G down
for a total max space of
On 11/01/13 at 12:50pm, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov, at 11:35:08AM, Dave Young wrote:
The conflict is caused by missing one commit in matt's efi next tree:
commit 700870119f49084da004ab588ea2b799689efaf7
Author: Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Apr 18 07:51:34 2013
On Fri, 01 Nov, at 11:35:08AM, Dave Young wrote:
> > The conflict is caused by missing one commit in matt's efi next tree:
> >
> > commit 700870119f49084da004ab588ea2b799689efaf7
> > Author: Josh Boyer
> > Date: Thu Apr 18 07:51:34 2013 -0700
> >
> > x86, efi: Don't map Boot Services on
On Fri, 01 Nov, at 11:35:08AM, Dave Young wrote:
The conflict is caused by missing one commit in matt's efi next tree:
commit 700870119f49084da004ab588ea2b799689efaf7
Author: Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Apr 18 07:51:34 2013 -0700
x86, efi: Don't map Boot Services
On 11/01/13 at 11:25am, Dave Young wrote:
> On 10/31/13 at 05:25pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov
> >
> > We map the EFI regions needed for runtime services non-contiguously,
> > with preserved alignment on virtual addresses starting from -4G down
> > for a total max space of
On 10/31/13 at 05:25pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov
>
> We map the EFI regions needed for runtime services non-contiguously,
> with preserved alignment on virtual addresses starting from -4G down
> for a total max space of 64G. This way, we provide for stable runtime
>
From: Borislav Petkov
We map the EFI regions needed for runtime services non-contiguously,
with preserved alignment on virtual addresses starting from -4G down
for a total max space of 64G. This way, we provide for stable runtime
services addresses across kernels so that a kexec'd kernel can
From: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
We map the EFI regions needed for runtime services non-contiguously,
with preserved alignment on virtual addresses starting from -4G down
for a total max space of 64G. This way, we provide for stable runtime
services addresses across kernels so that a kexec'd
On 10/31/13 at 05:25pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
From: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
We map the EFI regions needed for runtime services non-contiguously,
with preserved alignment on virtual addresses starting from -4G down
for a total max space of 64G. This way, we provide for stable runtime
On 11/01/13 at 11:25am, Dave Young wrote:
On 10/31/13 at 05:25pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
From: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
We map the EFI regions needed for runtime services non-contiguously,
with preserved alignment on virtual addresses starting from -4G down
for a total max space of
14 matches
Mail list logo
