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

From	Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL
Date	2016-04-17 23:20 +0200
Message-ID	<rp2gO-2eG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rmHJv-4qq-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rnXsR-ux-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <ro5A5-728-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web