On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:17:39AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Fine by me, although having a newline after arch_efi_call_virt_setup()
> > but not before arch_efi_call_virt_teardown() seems rather arbitrary
>
> It's an oversight! :-)
>
> #define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> ({ \
> efi_status_t __s; \
> unsigned long flags; \
> \
> arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> \
> local_save_flags(flags); \
> __s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
> \
> arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> \
> __s; \
> })
>
> But if it's too segmented this is fine too:
>
> #define efi_call_virt(f, args...) \
> ({ \
> efi_status_t __s; \
> unsigned long flags; \
> \
> arch_efi_call_virt_setup(); \
> local_save_flags(flags); \
> __s = arch_efi_call_virt(f, args); \
> efi_call_virt_check_flags(flags, __stringify(f)); \
> arch_efi_call_virt_teardown(); \
> \
> __s; \
> })
This makes sense to me. I'll make sure to include something like this
in my next version of the patch.
Thanks, guys!
- Alex
--
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
