On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:47:37PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:35:24PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Some firmware erroneously unmask IRQs (and potentially other architecture > > specific exceptions) during runtime services functions, in violation of both > > common sense and the UEFI specification. This can result in a number of issues > > if said exceptions are taken when they are expected to be masked, and > > additionally can confuse IRQ tracing if the original mask state is not > > restored prior to returning from firmware. > > > > In practice it's difficult to check that firmware never unmasks exceptions, but > > we can at least check that the IRQ flags are at least consistent upon entry to > > and return from a runtime services function call. This series implements said > > check in the shared EFI runtime wrappers code, after an initial round of > > refactoring such that this can be generic. [...] > So, I think this is a good thing, but the diffs end up being quite > hard to deciphre. Is there any non-insane shuffling around of things > that can make the changeset more clear? This is the clearest/simplest way I had found to organise them. I think the arm and arm64 diffs are fairly clear, so I assume you're mainly asking w.r.t. the x86 patch, which is less so due to the volume of lines that fall out of the diff context. The 32-bit side of that is simple, so I could split that into two patches, leaving the diff pain only with the 64-bit patch. Otherwise, short of moving things into a different file I think this is a losing battle against git's diff engine. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
