Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/boot: Add bit fields into xloadflags for 5-level
 kernel checking
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org
References: <20180829141624.13985-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20180829141624.13985-2-bhe@redhat.com>
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Message-ID: <6ea94875-ae07-6220-eb3e-d3f830cdac03@zytor.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Sep 2018 19:41:29 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180829141624.13985-2-bhe@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I don't understand why there is any reason not to always enter the target
kernel in 4-level mode.  There certainly is no point whatsoever in having two
xloadflags: the only thing that could possibly matter is whether or not the
kernel in question *can* be entered in 5-level mode should that ever be necessary.

	-hpa