[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D5301E70D8EAE@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 13:16:55 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Matt_Domsch@...l.com" <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Add support for using efivars as a pstore
backend
+ efi_pstore_info.buf = kmalloc(4096, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (efi_pstore_info.buf) {
+ efi_pstore_info.bufsize = 1024;
+ efi_pstore_info.data = efivars;
+ mutex_init(&efi_pstore_info.buf_mutex);
+ pstore_register(&efi_pstore_info);
+ }
I'd imagined #ifdef CONFIG_PSTORE around this (and the
efi_pstore_info definition) rather than providing stubs
for the !PSTORE case.
But your way works too.
You should avoid a memory leak with:
if (!pstore_register(&efi_pstore_info))
kfree(efi_pstore_info.buf);
I've also been thinking some more about how to handle a
system that has more than one pstore back-end available.
I still don't have any good ideas how to make use of more
than one backend - but it occurs to me that we may need
a way to let the user choose which to use (e.g. in the
unlikely event that a BIOS bug made one of ERST or EFI
unusable by pstore). The current "whoever registers first
gets to use it" now seems inadequate.
Perhaps a command line "pstore={backend}" might work, so
the user could specify pstore=efi to get your code, and
pstore=erst to get mine.
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists