From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH] efibc: avoid stack overflow warning Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20160501131348.GS2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1461952128-2135409-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <18565207.dPI1UNgYiO@wuerfel> <20160430224641.GQ2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> <2137916.p0oDBh93bk@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2137916.p0oDBh93bk@wuerfel> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: "Compostella, Jeremy" , Ingo Molnar , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 01 May, at 01:25:12AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 30 April 2016 23:46:41 Matt Fleming wrote: > > > > > It's not something we'd have to worry about in practice, but it does > > > make my patch incorrect. Should we come up with a different way to > > > do it? > > > > Jeremy proposed a patch to dynamically allocate the memory, which I > > think is the correct way to go given that our (reasonable) assumptions > > about reboot notifier concurrency are not guaranteed, > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87h9eked24.fsf-e2kLcBBGnpIIbNWpFUBdLQzuBQEzu/OPQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org > > Sure, that works. I considered doing it that way but it seemed more > complicated. Please use that patch instead of mine. Thanks Ard!