[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F485B9196@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 08:15:48 +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 Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 05:03:56AM +0000, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth wrote:
> > Hmm.. thought that __efi_init might be confusing with the normal
> > __init attribute
>
> How would that be confusing? It has "__efi" prepended?!
>
> All I'm saying is, if you're going to define your own function attributes, do them
> generic and short. "_fixup" is too specific IMO. It also enlarges function
> definitions unnecessarily.
>
Yes.. agreed that the function definitions did enlarge.
> With "__efi_init" you already denote that it is a special attribute which has
> relevance in the EFI code only. What you do about it - the
> *fixup* - is the thing you do with the attribute. But you don't have to have the
> "what you do" in the attribute name too.
Ok.. makes sense. Will roll a V3 with __efi_init.
Regards,
Sai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists