From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi: efivars: don't rely on blocking operations in non-blocking set_var() Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:12:30 +0000 Message-ID: <20151130111230.GA2441@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1447940191-30705-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1447940191-30705-3-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20151126095441.GA2765@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20151127211836.GB13918@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151127211836.GB13918-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Leif Lindholm , Mark Rutland , Matthew Garrett , Tony Luck List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Nov, at 09:18:36PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > > I *think* that'd be OK. The thing I wanted to avoid was a > proliferation of nonblocking versions of the standard EFI calls, but > limiting it to adding query_variable_info() doesn't seem too bad. > > Let me think about it over the weekend. I couldn't come up with anything better. Go for it!