Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
CC:     "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@suse.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        "Neri, Ricardo" <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 07/12] efi: Use efi_mm in x86 as well as ARM
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 07/12] efi: Use efi_mm in x86 as well as ARM
Thread-Index: AQHTtrPK9lah9E/Y50aW5dd4kdO5vqPIDIUA//+I8OA=
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:37:00 +0000
Message-ID: <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F2E581F50@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20180308080020.22828-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <20180308080020.22828-8-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <20180309074034.put3ko6zxmaoizzr@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180309074034.put3ko6zxmaoizzr@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.0.116
dlp-reaction: no-action
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > diff --git a/include/linux/efi.h b/include/linux/efi.h index
> > f5083aa72eae..f1b7d68ac460 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > @@ -966,6 +966,8 @@ extern struct efi {
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  } efi;
> >
> > +extern struct mm_struct efi_mm;
> > +
> >  static inline int
> >  efi_guidcmp (efi_guid_t left, efi_guid_t right)  {
> 
> Ugh, I can see three problems with this patch:
> 
> 1)
> 
> Why is the low level asm/efi.h header polluted with two of the biggest header
> files in existence, to add a type to _another_ header (efi.h)?
> 
> 2)
> 
> Why is <linux/sched/task.h> included if what is being relied on is mm_struct?
> 
> 3)
> 
> But even <linux/sched/mm.h> looks unnecessary in efi.h, a simple forward
> declaration of mm_struct would do ...
> 
> The high level MM and sched headers should be added to the actual .c files that
> make use of them.

Ok, makes sense.
Sorry! for that. I will fix the issues.

Regards,
Sai