Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1380836 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-04-17 23:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com> - 2016-04-19 07:40 +0200

#1380836 — Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL

On Fri, 15 Apr, at 08:38:37AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> I looked at it a bit with Vaishali.  I wonder if it would be possible at 
> least to have only one flag? Then one wouldn't have to maintain the 
> subtle relationship between atomic and duplicates.  I'm not sure that it 
> would help Coccinelle, but at least one could see more quickly that 
> Coccinelle is giving a false positive.

Yeah, that would be a good idea.

How about we drop the @atomic parameter and simply use @duplicates to
figure out whether to perform duplicate detection, which we should
note in the comment of efivar_init() cannot be performed atomically.
Bonus points if someone can clean up the code flow too.

Otherwise, efivar_init() is done while holding a spinlock.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1382188

On Monday 18 April 2016 02:48 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr, at 08:38:37AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> I looked at it a bit with Vaishali.  I wonder if it would be possible at 
>> least to have only one flag? Then one wouldn't have to maintain the 
>> subtle relationship between atomic and duplicates.  I'm not sure that it 
>> would help Coccinelle, but at least one could see more quickly that 
>> Coccinelle is giving a false positive.
> Yeah, that would be a good idea.
>
> How about we drop the @atomic parameter and simply use @duplicates to
> figure out whether to perform duplicate detection, which we should
> note in the comment of efivar_init() cannot be performed atomically.
> Bonus points if someone can clean up the code flow too.
I think using only @duplicates would be helpful to make code
more clear. I can actually clean up the code flow but it may take
some time for me to send the patches as I  already have some other
work with me.

Do you want to go for it? Or for now we can just go for dropping @atomic
parameter. 

> Otherwise, efivar_init() is done while holding a spinlock.

-- 
Vaishali

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web