On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 12:31 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:03:11 +0800
> "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 18:09 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > EFI runtime
> > > > services initialization are implemented in efi.c. Some x86_64
> > > > specifics are worth noting here. On x86_64, parameters passed to UEFI
> > > > firmware services need to follow the UEFI calling convention. For this
> > > > purpose, a set of functions named lin2win<x> (<x> is the number of
> > > > parameters) are implemented. EFI function calls are wrapped before
> > > > calling the firmware service.
> > >
> > > Why needs this to be called lin2win? We do not call Windows, we call
> > > EFI services, so please use a naming convention which is related to
> > > the functionality of the code.
> > >
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Function calling ABI conversion from SYSV to Windows for x86_64
> > >
> > > Again, these are wrappers to access EFI and not Windows.
> >
> > EFI uses the Windows x86_64 calling convention. The lin2win may be a
> > more general naming convention that can be used for some other code (the
> > NDISwrapper?) in the future. Do you agree?
>
> The SYSV description is wrong as well. SYSV has no calling convention. I
> think you mean iABI or iBCS2 ?
The SYSV description comes from the following document:
http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi-0.98.pdf
> Whats wrong with following the pattern of other calls like syscall(...)
> and just having eficall() ?
Yes. This is better.
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
