[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1365687035.13667.5.camel@x230.lan>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:30:35 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
CC: "matt.fleming@...el.com" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/3] Revert "x86, efivars: firmware bug workarounds
should be in platform code"
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 14:24 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On 10/04/13 18:46, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > This reverts commit a6e4d5a03e9e3587e88aba687d8f225f4f04c792. Doing this
> > workaround properly requires us to work within the variable code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c | 25 -------------------------
> > drivers/firmware/efivars.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> > include/linux/efi.h | 9 +--------
> > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> Does it really? Why can't you just hook into the get_next_variable() and
> set_variable() functions in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c?
struct efi_variable isn't exported from efivars.c, and chunks of the
workaround need to be called at efivars init anyway.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists