Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +int efi_get_secureboot(void)
>
> It looks like you didn't compile-test this on ARM.
Yes. What arm config would you suggest?
> > +#define f_getvar(...) efi_call_runtime(get_variable, __VA_ARGS__)
> > +
> > + status = f_getvar((efi_char16_t *)sb_var_name, (efi_guid_t *)&var_guid,
> > + NULL, &size, &val);
>
> Just replace the f_getvar yourself instead of having cpp do it:
>
> status = efi_call_runtime(get_variable, (efi_char16_t *)sb_var_name,
> (efi_guid_t *)&var_guid, NULL, &size, &val);
That makes it less clear. I think something like this makes it much more
obvious:
static efi_status_t get_efi_var(const efi_char16_t *name,
const efi_guid_t *vendor,
u32 *attr,
unsigned long *data_size, void *data)
{
return efi_call_runtime(get_variable,
(efi_char16_t *)name, (efi_guid_t *)vendor,
attr, data_size, data);
}
And then doing:
status = get_efi_var(efi_SecureBoot_name, &efi_variable_guid,
NULL, &size, &val);
which the compiler will inline.
> The "out_efi_err" portion differs from the previous version of this
> patch. Setting a __u8 to a negative value, is this really what you
> want?
Eh? efi_get_secureboot() returns an int as before. The out_efi_err: portions
are exactly the same:
> -static int efi_get_secureboot(...) > +int efi_get_secureboot(...)
> ... > ...
> -out_efi_err: > +out_efi_err:
> - switch (status) { > + switch (status) {
> - case EFI_NOT_FOUND: > + case EFI_NOT_FOUND:
> - return 0; > + return 0;
> - case EFI_DEVICE_ERROR: > + case EFI_DEVICE_ERROR:
> - return -EIO; > + return -EIO;
> - case EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION: > + case EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION:
> - return -EACCES; > + return -EACCES;
> - default: > + default:
> - return -EINVAL; > + return -EINVAL;
> - } > + }
> -}
David
--
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
