From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
"sami.mujawar@arm.com" <Sami.Mujawar@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: efi: add a separate timeout for UpdateCapsule()
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 04:33:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <asjQqEKdF6YiMXxU@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aqwO0EdIwzBQlnmW@e129823.arm.com>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 05:01:20PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > Could there be any issues with doing it this way, or would there be
> > > a better approach?
> > >
> >
> > Would it make sense to simply have different limits for UpdateCapsule() and
> > for everything else? How much longer than 2 minutes do you need in the
> > typical case?
>
> Although the time required to complete a firmware update depends onthe platform
> and other factors, such as whether the capsule contains a single firmware image
> or multiple images, it is generally reasonable to expect the update to complete
> within 10 minutes.
>
> If, for some reason, an update is expected to take longer than 10 minutes,
> the sysfs interface for configuring capsule_update_timeout would be useful.
>
> This would allow the timeout to be adjusted as needed, for example to
> 15 minutes, before capsule update.
In this case, if you have a worker that takes 10-15 minutes, will not
the workqueue stall kick in ?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-09 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-03 11:32 [PATCH] firmware: efi: add a separate timeout for UpdateCapsule() Yeoreum Yun
2026-09-03 11:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-03 14:10 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-09-03 14:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-03 14:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-03 14:35 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-09-15 8:49 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-09-17 12:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-17 16:01 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-10-09 1:29 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-10-09 11:33 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
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=asjQqEKdF6YiMXxU@gmail.com \
--to=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=Sami.Mujawar@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yeoreum.yun@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox