On Sun, 01 May, at 01:25:12AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 30 April 2016 23:46:41 Matt Fleming wrote: > > > > > It's not something we'd have to worry about in practice, but it does > > > make my patch incorrect. Should we come up with a different way to > > > do it? > > > > Jeremy proposed a patch to dynamically allocate the memory, which I > > think is the correct way to go given that our (reasonable) assumptions > > about reboot notifier concurrency are not guaranteed, > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87h9eked24.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Sure, that works. I considered doing it that way but it seemed more > complicated. Please use that patch instead of mine. Thanks Ard! -- 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
