[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F485B9142@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:03:56 +0000
From: "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Neri, Ricardo" <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
"matt@...eblueprint.co.uk" <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Lee Chun-Yi <jlee@...e.com>, Al Stone <astone@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 2/6] x86/efi: Remove __init attribute from memory
mapping functions
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:46:30AM -0700, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> > In order to not keep these functions needlessly when
> > "CONFIG_EFI_WARN_ON_ILLEGAL_ACCESS" is not selected, add a new
> > __efi_init_fixup attribute whose value changes based on whether the
>
> Why not just __efi_init{,data} ?
Hmm.. thought that __efi_init might be confusing with the normal __init attribute
and hence added "fixup", so that it's explicit that we are trying to fixup the normal
__init attribute. __efi_init_data doesn't seem appropriate because we are fixing
both functions and data.
Regards,
Sai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists