Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:46:33 +0100 | From | Matt Fleming <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] efi: Capsule update support |
| |
On Fri, 10 Oct, at 08:28:47PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > You have efi_capsule_update() vs efi_update_capsule(). Maybe change the > names a bit more for differentiation. Or prepend the workhorse doing all > the work with "__" or so...
Yeah, I really didn't come up with a great naming scheme here. I'll fix that.
> > + > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_block_pgs; i++) { > > + block_pgs[i] = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); > > Maybe alloc_pages() once we verify that it actually gives phys. contig. > memory and maybe also try to do it outside of the locked region. I don't > know if it would matter to drop the locks though as capsule updating is > not something you do pretty often. I'd hope!
Actually, I'm not bothered about getting physically contiguous memory because we pass a scatter gather list to the firmware anyway. What I was looking for was to avoid doing high order allocations when we don't really need them (lots of low order allocs are fine).
Right, allocating under the lock isn't a great idea. I'll take a look at reworking this to do the allocation up front.
-- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
| |