On Mon, 04 Aug, at 03:13:28PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Well, again, the spec allows it. But I am happy to remove it as it > does not affect ARM anyway Right, I understand why you added these now. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't do the NMI dancing unless absolutely necessary, e.g. because of corresponding kernel code paths. The fact that the spec allows it doesn't necessarily mean we should support it. But I do like the idea of documenting that the spec allows for things that we don't support, because that at least informs developers, when they come snooping around this file, that they've got some additional work to do if they want to call these functions from NMI context. So the table you included is cool, and I think some additional sentences along the lines of "... but we don't support calling all these functions from NMI context" would be a good addition. What do you think? -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
