On Saturday 30 April 2016 23:46:41 Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> > It's not something we'd have to worry about in practice, but it does
> > make my patch incorrect. Should we come up with a different way to
> > do it?
>
> Jeremy proposed a patch to dynamically allocate the memory, which I
> think is the correct way to go given that our (reasonable) assumptions
> about reboot notifier concurrency are not guaranteed,
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87h9eked24....@jcompost-mobl1.tl.intel.com
Sure, that works. I considered doing it that way but it seemed more
complicated. Please use that patch instead of mine.
Arnd
