[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8q-9enjK=WLiB5tWvRKQu9+xh=dCqBtB6X9wazKuYiMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:08:26 +0000
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Joe Konno <joe.konno@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] efivarfs: Limit the rate for non-root to read files
On 22 February 2018 at 18:07, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
>> With the new "while/nap" change there would still be one message
>> per second, but the number of callbacks suppressed should be 1
>> (unless the user has many threads doing reads).
>>
>> Maybe it is good to know that an application is doing something
>> stupid and we should drop that line from the patch and let the
>> warnings flow?
>
> I think the "one message per second" is fine.
>
> Looks good. Do I get this through the EFI tree, or should I just take
> it directly?
>
Please take it directly if everybody is happy with it.
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists