Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751177AbcDQVSk (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2016 17:18:40 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:36630 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750803AbcDQVSj (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2016 17:18:39 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 22:18:35 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Julia Lawall Cc: Vaishali Thakkar , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saurabh Sengar Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL Message-ID: <20160417211835.GY2829@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1460372009-10785-1-git-send-email-vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com> <20160414214949.GS2829@codeblueprint.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 746 Lines: 16 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 Coccinelle, but at least one could see more quickly that > Coccinelle is giving a false positive. Yeah, that would be a good idea. How about we drop the @atomic parameter and simply use @duplicates to figure out whether to perform duplicate detection, which we should note in the comment of efivar_init() cannot be performed atomically. Bonus points if someone can clean up the code flow too. Otherwise, efivar_init() is done while holding a spinlock.