[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1313432283.3436.110.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:18:03 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, mjg@...hat.com,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
johnstultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:12 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Bottom line - the fix here is needed for 32-bit booting only (and
> hence isn't - afaic - as critical as I first thought). But the adjustment
> I'm holding is a necessary one (and I don't even understand why,
> when 32- and 64-bit EFI code got merged, this was left 32-bit only),
> and the NX consolidation change needs to be fixed too (basically as
> a prerequisite).
But the rtc-lock patch is independent and can be merged on its own,
right? Sure the other issues need fixing but there's no sense in holding
up the rtc-lock patch, since with it applied my machine actually boots.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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