From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753552Ab1HDLhc (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2011 07:37:32 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:51662 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753089Ab1HDLh3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2011 07:37:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:36:56 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: john stultz Cc: Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matt Fleming , Jan Beulich , "H. Peter Anvin" , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Alessandro Zummo Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock Message-ID: <20110804113655.GA30077@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1312405454-29386-1-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 03:22:24AM -0700, john stultz wrote: > Sorry if this should be obvious, but is there a reason your not using > your own internal lock for serializing the efi bits rather then using > the rtc_lock? On x86 systems the EFI clock is almost certainly the AT RTC, so it's necessary to serialise accesses between EFI and the traditional clock interface. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org