On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 03:18:14PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug, at 04:10:45PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't we clear the bit here if we failed to enable runtime
> > services for some reason? Other code may test the bit assuming that it
> > signifies that runtime services have been enabled successfully, while
> > this patch changes it to mean that we /intended/ to enable them, which
> > is not quite the same thing.
>
> Yep, good catch. We need to do something similar for efi_runtime_init()
> on x86 too.
Since we're now overlaying two different meanings onto the
EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES bit, could we add comments at set/clear points to
explicitly state the intended action? I.e.:
/* Set to attempt runtime services initialisation */
/* Clear to indicate runtime services will not be available */
/
Leif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
