From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752180Ab1IVNPP (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:15:15 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:46208 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751968Ab1IVNPM (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:15:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:15:05 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Chen Gong Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mikew@google.com, saguchi@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: Avoid sysfs spew on reboot and panic Message-ID: <20110922131504.GA11990@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1316552853-2000-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <4E795A9C.4040508@linux.intel.com> <20110921124018.GA22155@srcf.ucam.org> <4E7A9BC6.9070608@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4E7A9BC6.9070608@linux.intel.com> 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, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:21:58AM +0800, Chen Gong wrote: > 于 2011/9/21 20:40, Matthew Garrett 写道: > >On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:31:40AM +0800, Chen Gong wrote: > >>> mutex_lock(&psinfo->buf_mutex); > >>> memcpy(psinfo->buf, buf, size); > >>>- id = psinfo->write(type, 0, size, psinfo); > >>>+ id = psinfo->write(type, 0, KMSG_DUMP_UNKNOWN, size, psinfo); > >> > >>I can't say it is wrong because no real caller for this function, but I can't > >>say it is right, yet. KMSG_DUMP_UNKNOWN here looks too arbirary. Do you have > >>any reason to use this type here ? > > > >If a function calls pstore_write() directly then we have no type to > >associate with it. It seems worth making this explicit. > > Yep, that's the point. We hope to get a more reasonable method to do it, not > any assumption. I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you give an example of how you think this should look? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org