[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A5ED84D3BB3A384992CBB9C77DEDA4D413805E79@USINDEM103.corp.hds.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:28:09 +0000
From: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
To: Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony (tony.luck@...el.com)" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Matthew Garrett (mjg@...hat.com)" <mjg@...hat.com>,
"dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/3] efi_pstore: Skip scheduling a workqueue in
cases other than oops
> > Also, a logic of erase callback is freshly created instead of sharing
> > with a write callback because the sysfs operation is kicked in just oops case in a write callback and an erase callback doesn't work
> without any change.
> > By separating a logic to a write callback, an erase callback works correctly.
>
> I don't understand why this part of the patch is required.
If I have to keep sharing the code of an erase callback with a write callback,
I can change my patch as follows.
I just thought the code would be ieasy to read by separating them.
<snip>
efi_pstore_write()
{
+ /*
+ * The user may want to update when they erases an entry or see it for this write in sysfs in oops case.
+ */
+ if (!size || reason == KMSG_DUMP_OOPS)
+ schedule_work(&efivar_work);
}
<snip>
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