> > Another follow on question is, does every firmware support both
> > blocking and non-blocking variants (specially legacy EFI firmware)? I
> > am worried about this because, presently efi_delete_dummy_variable()
> > uses set_variable() and
> > query_variable_info() but if I change efi_delete_dum
On 27 May 2018 at 10:37, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth
wrote:
>> > One more question again, if we are sure that non-blocking variants
>> > will _always_ be called in atomic context, then, we got it covered.
>> > Because, in
>> > set_variable() and query_variable_info() (both blocking and
>> > non-blocking
> > One more question again, if we are sure that non-blocking variants
> > will _always_ be called in atomic context, then, we got it covered.
> > Because, in
> > set_variable() and query_variable_info() (both blocking and
> > non-blocking) we check for in_atomic() and if so, we don't use efi_rts_w
On 27 May 2018 at 07:32, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth
wrote:
>> > Assume some user requested to execute some non-blocking variant of
>> > efi_rts and the kernel hasn't called efi_call_virt() yet, but was
>> > scheduled out. IOW, even though user requests for non-blocking efi call, we
>> might still block
> > Assume some user requested to execute some non-blocking variant of
> > efi_rts and the kernel hasn't called efi_call_virt() yet, but was
> > scheduled out. IOW, even though user requests for non-blocking efi call, we
> might still block. Am I right?
> >
>
> No, that is the whole point. These f
On 26 May 2018 at 01:08, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth
wrote:
>> > Changes from V3 to V4:
>> > --
>> > 1. As suggested by Peter, use completions instead of flush_work() as the
>> > former is cheaper
>> > 2. Call efi_delete_dummy_variable() from efisubsys_init(). Sorry! Ard,
>> > wa
> > Changes from V3 to V4:
> > --
> > 1. As suggested by Peter, use completions instead of flush_work() as the
> > former is cheaper
> > 2. Call efi_delete_dummy_variable() from efisubsys_init(). Sorry! Ard,
> > wasn't able to find a better alternative to keep this change lo
On 26 May 2018 at 00:05, Sai Praneeth Prakhya
wrote:
> From: Sai Praneeth
>
> Problem statement:
> --
> Presently, efi_runtime_services() silently switch %cr3 from swapper_pgd
> to efi_pgd. As a consequence, kernel code that runs in efi_pgd (e.g.,
> perf code via an NMI) will have
8 matches
Mail list logo
