Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] x86/UV, x86/efi: Re-factor efi_call_virt for general use

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 02:11:38PM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > Let me know what everybody thinks! I realized right as I sent these that I should've included prefixes on the individual patches. I have a feeling we'll need a v2 anyways, so I'll clean that up then. - Alex

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] x86/UV, x86/efi: Re-factor efi_call_virt for general use

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 02:11:38PM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > Let me know what everybody thinks! I realized right as I sent these that I should've included prefixes on the individual patches. I have a feeling we'll need a v2 anyways, so I'll clean that up then. - Alex

[RFC PATCH 0/3] x86/UV, x86/efi: Re-factor efi_call_virt for general use

Hey guys, This patchset creates a general purpose version of the efi_call_virt macro that does not assume that the function pointer being passed in is inside of efi.systab->runtime. It also fixes up a few potentional users of that new functionality, namely the SGI UV, and the CONFIG_EFI_MIXED

[RFC PATCH 0/3] x86/UV, x86/efi: Re-factor efi_call_virt for general use

Hey guys, This patchset creates a general purpose version of the efi_call_virt macro that does not assume that the function pointer being passed in is inside of efi.systab->runtime. It also fixes up a few potentional users of that new functionality, namely the SGI UV, and the CONFIG_EFI_MIXED