[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E7C2A15.80703@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:41:25 +0800
From: Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
CC: tony.luck@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mikew@...gle.com, saguchi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: Avoid sysfs spew on reboot and panic
于 2011/9/22 21:15, Matthew Garrett 写道:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:21:58AM +0800, Chen Gong wrote:
>> 于 2011/9/21 20:40, Matthew Garrett 写道:
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:31:40AM +0800, Chen Gong wrote:
>>>>> mutex_lock(&psinfo->buf_mutex);
>>>>> memcpy(psinfo->buf, buf, size);
>>>>> - id = psinfo->write(type, 0, size, psinfo);
>>>>> + id = psinfo->write(type, 0, KMSG_DUMP_UNKNOWN, size, psinfo);
>>>>
>>>> I can't say it is wrong because no real caller for this function, but I can't
>>>> say it is right, yet. KMSG_DUMP_UNKNOWN here looks too arbirary. Do you have
>>>> any reason to use this type here ?
>>>
>>> If a function calls pstore_write() directly then we have no type to
>>> associate with it. It seems worth making this explicit.
>>
>> Yep, that's the point. We hope to get a more reasonable method to do it, not
>> any assumption.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you give an example of how you
> think this should look?
>
If you insist on your design, I prefer deleting the function pstore_write before
applying your patch. We all know no real users to call this function,
every backend will register Its own callback, so this function is useless at all.
--
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