From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751989AbdA2TQg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:16:36 -0500
Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:35809 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751834AbdA2TQa (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:16:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170129091912.GA26237@gmail.com>
References: <1485641531-22124-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org>
 <1485641531-22124-38-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> <CA+55aFxSgQZVmefbzWgNa6Af3+HDN=zZQnV_OactcJRD1YMHKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170129091912.GA26237@gmail.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:53:40 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: C8eGcm2JskXrrZvl7BTouN501AQ
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxh+YfC=dum0=d9VkRsy3=FpxAt-vkMDxO6qv3K9Qt=2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 37/50] x86/boot/e820: Use 'enum e820_type' in 'struct e820_entry'
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Would it be acceptable to use enum for the kernel internal representation (our
> e820_table structures never actually comes directly, we construct it ourselves),
> and maintain the very explicitly sized ABI type for the boot protocol only (i.e.
> uapi/asm/bootparam.h)?

I guess that would work, assuming that it doesn't cause unnecessary conversions.

Looking at the patch you sent out (assuming that's the complete deal),
it looks reasonable.

               Linus