From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751687Ab1HPJOg (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:14:36 -0400 Received: from arkanian.console-pimps.org ([212.110.184.194]:45999 "EHLO arkanian.console-pimps.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751158Ab1HPJOd (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:14:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock From: Matt Fleming To: Jan Beulich Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , hpa@linux.intel.com, Avi Kivity , mjg@redhat.com, MarceloTosatti , johnstultz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4E4A28AE0200007800051605@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <4E3C30C602000078000740D5@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1312810836.10579.127.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> <4E4009A50200007800050258@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20110810090330.GF26762@elte.hu> <4E426D4702000078000508B5@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20110810095140.GB21059@elte.hu> <4E429FE30200007800050910@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1313432283.3436.110.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> <4E4A28AE0200007800051605@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:14:28 +0100 Message-ID: <1313486068.3436.116.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 (2.32.2-1.fc14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 07:22 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 15.08.11 at 20:18, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:12 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Bottom line - the fix here is needed for 32-bit booting only (and > >> hence isn't - afaic - as critical as I first thought). But the adjustment > >> I'm holding is a necessary one (and I don't even understand why, > >> when 32- and 64-bit EFI code got merged, this was left 32-bit only), > >> and the NX consolidation change needs to be fixed too (basically as > >> a prerequisite). > > > > But the rtc-lock patch is independent and can be merged on its own, > > right? Sure the other issues need fixing but there's no sense in holding > > up the rtc-lock patch, since with it applied my machine actually boots. > > Oh, yes, absolutely - I'm actually waiting for this one to get applied so > that the enabling of the use of the EFI RTC routines on x86-64 won't > cause the same problem there. OK cool, thanks Jan. I suspect Ingo will pick this up, or Thomas once he's worked through his email backlog ;-) -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center