[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141001161151.GD14343@console-pimps.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 17:11:51 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] efi: Provide a non-blocking SetVariable() operation
On Wed, 01 Oct, at 05:26:24PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> If you want to have this usable from NMI context, you need to convert
> efi_runtime_lock to a raw_spinlock_t.
Hmm.. I note that none of the spinlocks in the pstore code path that we
execute to get here are raw_spinlock_t. And that's the only code path
that calls this function.
They need to be raw_spinlock_t for -rt?
> Also, it would probably be a good idea to have some selftest like thing
> that actually calls this from NMI context, right?
Yeah probably, although that'd need to be a core pstore test since
there's nothing really interesting going on in
virt_efi_set_variable_nonblocking(), and it would be good to test it out
in the larger pstore context.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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