Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759526Ab3E3WYP (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2013 18:24:15 -0400 Received: from [207.46.163.242] ([207.46.163.242]:3383 "EHLO na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758693Ab3E3WYH (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2013 18:24:07 -0400 From: Matthew Garrett To: Russ Anderson CC: joeyli , Jiri Kosina , Matt Fleming , "matt.fleming@intel.com" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ingo Molnar , "Thomas Gleixner" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [regression, bisected] x86: efi: Pass boot services variable info to runtime code Thread-Topic: [regression, bisected] x86: efi: Pass boot services variable info to runtime code Thread-Index: AQHOXYQW/WUBwmRoikKwtmPDRFxJOQ== Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:21:53 +0000 Message-ID: <1369952512.11620.14.camel@x230> References: <20130522162747.GA20816@sgi.com> <20130523115801.GJ14575@console-pimps.org> <20130523203234.GD20913@sgi.com> <20130524074331.GL14575@console-pimps.org> <20130529210115.GC28027@sgi.com> <20130529224645.GA16582@sgi.com> <1369880172.17397.11.camel@linux-s257.site> <20130530221737.GA11105@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20130530221737.GA11105@sgi.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.255.84.4] x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI;SFS:;DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:-1;SRVR:BY2PR05MB223;H:BY2PR05MB222.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nebula.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id r4UMOXeL020937 Content-Length: 514 Lines: 11 On Thu, 2013-05-30 at 17:17 -0500, Russ Anderson wrote: > That's a great idea. This patch moves the QueryVariableInfo() > call from bootime to runtime, in efi_late_init(). The attached > patch is consistent with the UEFI spec and avoids the problem. No, that defeats the entire point of the original patch. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?