From: Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: Use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
References: <1460372009-10785-1-git-send-email-vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com>
 <20160414214949.GS2829@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604150837040.2061@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <20160417211835.GY2829@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.truth@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5715C2C7.8000106@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:01:51 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160417211835.GY2829@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1126
Lines: 27


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 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.
I think using only @duplicates would be helpful to make code
more clear. I can actually clean up the code flow but it may take
some time for me to send the patches as I  already have some other
work with me.

Do you want to go for it? Or for now we can just go for dropping @atomic
parameter. 

> Otherwise, efivar_init() is done while holding a spinlock.

-- 
Vaishali