From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:17:45 +0100 From: Matt Fleming To: Jan Beulich Cc: Joey Lee , Zach Bobroff , Matt Fleming , Matthew Garrett , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: retry ExitBootServices() on failure Message-ID: <20130617101745.GB8569@console-pimps.org> References: <1370933558-10128-1-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <1371139233.6523.272.camel@linux-s257.site> <20130617092107.GA5440@console-pimps.org> <51BEF71402000078000DEC12@nat28.tlf.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51BEF71402000078000DEC12@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 17 Jun, at 10:46:28AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > To me, all this looks like it is being done on phenomenological basis, > taking a particular build of a particular firmware implementation as > the reference. Imo we shouldn't change the code in this way. This > also applies to the fact that the step is being doubled rather than > e.g. tripled: With it ending up a "again" anyway (see below), what's > the point of avoiding one more of the iterations? > > Generic considerations would result in the increment being at least > 3 * element size; twice the element size assumes that the allocator > would behave in certain ways (like returning the head or tail part of > a larger piece of memory). I have no issue with changing the multiplier. But let's get clarification from Zach as to what exactly is going on here. > I agree that there ought to be an upper limit. But a single retry here > again looks like a tailored solution to a particular observed (mis-) > behavior, rather than something resulting from general considerations. What value would you suggest for the retry? -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center