[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140806144839.GK4179@bivouac.eciton.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 15:48:39 +0100
From: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] UEFI arm64: add noefi boot param
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 03:18:14PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug, at 04:10:45PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't we clear the bit here if we failed to enable runtime
> > services for some reason? Other code may test the bit assuming that it
> > signifies that runtime services have been enabled successfully, while
> > this patch changes it to mean that we /intended/ to enable them, which
> > is not quite the same thing.
>
> Yep, good catch. We need to do something similar for efi_runtime_init()
> on x86 too.
Since we're now overlaying two different meanings onto the
EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES bit, could we add comments at set/clear points to
explicitly state the intended action? I.e.:
/* Set to attempt runtime services initialisation */
/* Clear to indicate runtime services will not be available */
/
Leif
--
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