Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-17 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 16 May, at 05:58:40PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > > > I was simply re-using the efi_call implementation. Boris suggested that > > I re-write this using the efi_call_virt macro, so I just went with that. > > It all seems to

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-17 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 16 May, at 05:58:40PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > > > I was simply re-using the efi_call implementation. Boris suggested that > > I re-write this using the efi_call_virt macro, so I just went with that. > > It all seems to

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-17 Thread Matt Fleming
On Mon, 16 May, at 05:58:40PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > I was simply re-using the efi_call implementation. Boris suggested that > I re-write this using the efi_call_virt macro, so I just went with that. > It all seems to work just fine, so I don't see much reason to stray away > from that

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-17 Thread Matt Fleming
On Mon, 16 May, at 05:58:40PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > I was simply re-using the efi_call implementation. Boris suggested that > I re-write this using the efi_call_virt macro, so I just went with that. > It all seems to work just fine, so I don't see much reason to stray away > from that

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-16 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:17:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Fine by me, although having a newline after arch_efi_call_virt_setup() > > but not before arch_efi_call_virt_teardown() seems rather arbitrary > > It's an oversight! :-) > > #define efi_call_virt(f, args...)

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-16 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:17:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Fine by me, although having a newline after arch_efi_call_virt_setup() > > but not before arch_efi_call_virt_teardown() seems rather arbitrary > > It's an oversight! :-) > > #define efi_call_virt(f, args...)

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-16 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 01:06:00PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > (Adding author of arch_efi_call code) > > On Wed, 11 May, at 02:55:44PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > We need a slightly different macro than the standard efi_call_virt, > > since those macros all assume that the function pointer, f,

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-16 Thread Alex Thorlton
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 01:06:00PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > (Adding author of arch_efi_call code) > > On Wed, 11 May, at 02:55:44PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > We need a slightly different macro than the standard efi_call_virt, > > since those macros all assume that the function pointer, f,

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-12 Thread Matt Fleming
(Adding author of arch_efi_call code) On Wed, 11 May, at 02:55:44PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > We need a slightly different macro than the standard efi_call_virt, > since those macros all assume that the function pointer, f, that gets > passed in will live somewhere in efi.systab->runtime. Our EFI

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-12 Thread Matt Fleming
(Adding author of arch_efi_call code) On Wed, 11 May, at 02:55:44PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > We need a slightly different macro than the standard efi_call_virt, > since those macros all assume that the function pointer, f, that gets > passed in will live somewhere in efi.systab->runtime. Our EFI

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-12 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 12 May 2016 at 08:46, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Alex Thorlton wrote: > > > >> +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...)\ > >> +({

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-12 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 12 May 2016 at 08:46, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Alex Thorlton wrote: > > > >> +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...)\ > >> +({ \ > >> + efi_status_t __s;

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-12 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 12 May 2016 at 08:46, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Alex Thorlton wrote: > >> +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...)\ >> +({ \ >> + efi_status_t __s;

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-12 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 12 May 2016 at 08:46, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Alex Thorlton wrote: > >> +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...)\ >> +({ \ >> + efi_status_t __s;

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-12 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Alex Thorlton wrote: > +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...)\ > +({ \ > + efi_status_t __s; \ > + unsigned long flags;

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-12 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Alex Thorlton wrote: > +#define efi_call_virt(f, args...)\ > +({ \ > + efi_status_t __s; \ > + unsigned long flags;

[PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-11 Thread Alex Thorlton
We need a slightly different macro than the standard efi_call_virt, since those macros all assume that the function pointer, f, that gets passed in will live somewhere in efi.systab->runtime. Our EFI function pointer lives in efi.uv_systab, so we can't use the standard macros out of the box.

[PATCH 1/2] Create UV efi_call macros

2016-05-11 Thread Alex Thorlton
We need a slightly different macro than the standard efi_call_virt, since those macros all assume that the function pointer, f, that gets passed in will live somewhere in efi.systab->runtime. Our EFI function pointer lives in efi.uv_systab, so we can't use the standard macros out of the box.