Re: [PATCH v2] multiboot2: clarify usage of the address tag

[Roger Pau Monné]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 11:35:52AM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:59:06PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > Add a note to spell out that if the address tag is not present the
> > file should be loaded using the elf header.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <address@hidden>
> > ---
> > Cc: Daniel Kiper <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > ---
> > Changes since v1:
> >  - s/elf/@sc{elf}/
> >  - s/Multiboot/Multiboot2/
> > ---
> >  doc/multiboot.texi | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/multiboot.texi b/doc/multiboot.texi
> > index 2e2d7e74a..3c797787c 100644
> > --- a/doc/multiboot.texi
> > +++ b/doc/multiboot.texi
> > @@ -509,6 +509,12 @@ assumes that no bss segment is present.
> >
> >  @end table
> >
> > +Note: This information does not need to be provided if the kernel image
> > +is in @sc{elf} format, but it must be provided if the image is in a.out
> > +format or in some other format. Compliant boot loaders must be able to
> > +load images that are either in @sc{elf} format or contain the address
> > +tag embedded in the Multiboot2 header.
> > +
> 
> Now it is better. However, there is a lack of information that this tag
> should be preferred over the relevant data provided in the ELF header if
> both are available in the image. This have to be clear like it is in
> Multiboot spec.

Would you be OK with adding the following sentence at the end:

"When the address tag is present it must be used in order to load the
image, regardless of whether an @sc{elf} header is also present."

Roger.