From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>,
Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/platform/UV: Fix support for EFI_OLD_MEMMAP after BIOS callback updates
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:32:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161019113200.GE31476@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1476794858-200667-1-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com>
On Tue, 18 Oct, at 07:47:38AM, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> Some time ago, we brought our UV BIOS callback code up to speed with the
> new EFI memory mapping scheme, in commit:
>
> d1be84a232e3 ("x86/uv: Update uv_bios_call() to use efi_call_virt_pointer()")
>
> By leveraging some changes that I made to a few of the EFI runtime
> callback mechanisms, in commit:
>
> 80e75596079f ("efi: Convert efi_call_virt() to efi_call_virt_pointer()")
>
> This got everything running smoothly on UV, with the new EFI mapping
> code. However, this left one, small loose end, in that EFI_OLD_MEMMAP
> (a.k.a. efi=old_map) will no longer work on UV, on kernels that include
> the aforementioned changes.
>
> At the time this was not a major issue (in fact, it still really isn't),
> but there's no reason that EFI_OLD_MEMMAP *shouldn't* work on our
> systems. This commit adds a check into uv_bios_call, to see if we have
> the EFI_OLD_MEMMAP bit set in efi.flags. If it is set, we fall back to
> using our old callback method, which uses efi_call directly on the __va
> of our function pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
> Cc: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
> Cc: Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>
> Cc: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> ---
> arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c b/arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c
> index b4d5e95..12b6e52 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,15 @@ s64 uv_bios_call(enum uv_bios_cmd which, u64 a1, u64 a2, u64 a3, u64 a4, u64 a5)
> */
> return BIOS_STATUS_UNIMPLEMENTED;
>
> - ret = efi_call_virt_pointer(tab, function, (u64)which, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);
> + /*
> + * If EFI_OLD_MEMMAP is set, we need to fall back to using our old EFI
> + * callback method, which uses efi_call directly, with the kernel page tables.
> + */
> + if (!test_bit(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP, &efi.flags))
> + ret = efi_call_virt_pointer(tab, function, (u64)which, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);
> + else
> + ret = efi_call((void *)__va(tab->function), (u64)which, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);
> +
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(uv_bios_call);
Could you please invert the conditional? I had to read it 3 times to
make sure it was correct given the comment that precedes it. E.g. this
is preferable,
if (efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP))
ret = efi_call((void *)__va(tab->function), (u64)which, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);
else
ret = efi_call_virt_pointer(tab, function, (u64)which, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-19 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-18 12:47 [PATCH] x86/platform/UV: Fix support for EFI_OLD_MEMMAP after BIOS callback updates Alex Thorlton
2016-10-19 11:32 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
2016-10-19 12:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-10-19 12:57 ` Alex Thorlton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161019113200.GE31476@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=athorlton@sgi.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rja@sgi.com \
--cc=sivanich@sgi.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.