[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5C4C569E8A4B9B42A84A977CF070A35B2C581E22C5@USINDEVS01.corp.hds.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:22:14 -0500
From: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...el.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"'ying.huang@...el.com'" <'ying.huang@...el.com'>,
"'ak@...ux.intel.com'" <'ak@...ux.intel.com'>,
"'hughd@...omium.org'" <'hughd@...omium.org'>,
"'mingo@...e.hu'" <'mingo@...e.hu'>,
"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"namhyung@...il.com" <namhyung@...il.com>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH v3 2/3] Skip spin_locks in panic case and add
WARN_ON()
>But this seems pretty clear that we don't need to self-NMI.
Thank you for your explanation.
Now I understand that we don't need self-NMI and efi_pstore can blindly continue in panic path
because setvariable() will succeed even if the previous call that took the exception didn't succeed.
I will submit an updated patch by removing spin_lock of efi_pstore_write() in panic path.
Seiji
--
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