On 17/06/20 17:46, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> That said, Igor's patch seems correct to me. In fact, I'd even move >> DisableInterrupts before gBS->RestoreTPL unless there's a good reason >> not to do so. > OK, thank you! > > Igor, please confirm if you'd like to submit v2 with the update > suggested by Paolo, or if you prefer the current version. We're at the > beginning of the current development cycle, so I guess we can apply the > patch and see how it works in practice. If it ends up wreaking havoc on > some platforms, we can always revert the patch in time for the next > stable tag (edk2-stable202008).
For what it's worth "correct" means that I don't see anything that could break and in fact I find it good policy hygienic not to allow recursive interrupts. v1 is okay for me too, so: Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> Paolo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#61432): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/61432 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/74913405/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
