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

2016-04-18 Thread Vaishali Thakkar
On Monday 18 April 2016 02:48 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > 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

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

2016-04-18 Thread Vaishali Thakkar
On Monday 18 April 2016 02:48 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > 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

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

2016-04-17 Thread Matt Fleming
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

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

2016-04-17 Thread Matt Fleming
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

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

2016-04-15 Thread Julia Lawall
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr, at 04:23:29PM, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > > Function dup_variable_bug is called inside the spinlock. > > This may lead to issues when kzalloc sleeps, so it is > > better to use GFP_ATOMIC in this spinlocked context. > > > > Problem

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

2016-04-15 Thread Julia Lawall
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr, at 04:23:29PM, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > > Function dup_variable_bug is called inside the spinlock. > > This may lead to issues when kzalloc sleeps, so it is > > better to use GFP_ATOMIC in this spinlocked context. > > > > Problem

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

2016-04-14 Thread Matt Fleming
On Mon, 11 Apr, at 04:23:29PM, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > Function dup_variable_bug is called inside the spinlock. > This may lead to issues when kzalloc sleeps, so it is > better to use GFP_ATOMIC in this spinlocked context. > > Problem found using Coccinelle. Dang it, I broke coccinelle ;) >

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

2016-04-14 Thread Matt Fleming
On Mon, 11 Apr, at 04:23:29PM, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > Function dup_variable_bug is called inside the spinlock. > This may lead to issues when kzalloc sleeps, so it is > better to use GFP_ATOMIC in this spinlocked context. > > Problem found using Coccinelle. Dang it, I broke coccinelle ;) >

[PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL

2016-04-11 Thread Vaishali Thakkar
Function dup_variable_bug is called inside the spinlock. This may lead to issues when kzalloc sleeps, so it is better to use GFP_ATOMIC in this spinlocked context. Problem found using Coccinelle. Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar --- drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c | 2

[PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL

2016-04-11 Thread Vaishali Thakkar
Function dup_variable_bug is called inside the spinlock. This may lead to issues when kzalloc sleeps, so it is better to use GFP_ATOMIC in this spinlocked context. Problem found using Coccinelle. Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar --- drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1