Add EFI_SHELL_PROTOCOL #51
Conversation
Defined in UEFI Shell Specification Signed-off-by: Ayush <ayushsingh1325@gmail.com>
|
The failed CI is probably due to rust-lang/rust#101071 |
|
Hi @dvdhrm , can you rerun the CI now that rust-lang/rust#101071 has been merged? I think it should be fixed now. |
| ) -> *mut crate::protocols::device_path::Protocol}; | ||
|
|
||
| pub type GetFilePathFromDevicePath = eficall! {fn( | ||
| *mut *mut crate::protocols::device_path::Protocol, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be *mut rather than *mut *mut, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be
*mutrather than*mut *mut, right?
Yes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I already have it queued locally.
| &[0x60, 0xc9, 0xfe, 0xf5, 0xda, 0x4e], | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| pub type ShellFileHandle = *mut core::ffi::c_void; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is actually SHELL_FILE_HANDLE in the spec? Why does this not have the EFI_* prefix? sigh
If it was EFI_SHELL_FILE_HANDLE, we would call it FileHandle (drop the shell prefix). What do you think, should we rename to FileHandle to be more consistent?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be fine to rename it to FileHandle since it is not used in any other Shell Protocols.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[repr(C)] | ||
| pub struct ShellFileInfo { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is called EFI_SHELL_FILE_INFO in the spec, so we should really name it FileInfo.
|
Perfect! Merged. Thanks a lot! |
Defined in UEFI Shell Specification.
I have left all the pointers as
*mutfor now. But I think it might be possible to change some of them to*const.Signed-off-by: Ayush ayushsingh1325@gmail.com