* Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Sai Praneeth <[email protected]> > > Presently, efi_delete_dummy_variable() uses set_variable() which might > block and hence kernel prints stack trace with a warning "bad: > scheduling from the idle thread!". So, make efi_delete_dummy_variable() > use set_variable_nonblocking(), which, as the name suggests doesn't > block. > > Signed-off-by: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> > --- > arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c | 11 +++++------ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c > index 36c1f8b9f7e0..6af39dc40325 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c > @@ -105,12 +105,11 @@ early_param("efi_no_storage_paranoia", > setup_storage_paranoia); > */ > void efi_delete_dummy_variable(void) > { > - efi.set_variable((efi_char16_t *)efi_dummy_name, > - &EFI_DUMMY_GUID, > - EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE | > - EFI_VARIABLE_BOOTSERVICE_ACCESS | > - EFI_VARIABLE_RUNTIME_ACCESS, > - 0, NULL); > + efi.set_variable_nonblocking((efi_char16_t *)efi_dummy_name, > + &EFI_DUMMY_GUID, > + EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE | > + EFI_VARIABLE_BOOTSERVICE_ACCESS | > + EFI_VARIABLE_RUNTIME_ACCESS, 0, NULL); > } Just wondering, what is the full stack trace of the splat? It sounds a bit surprising to me that such type of EFI code is used from the idle thread. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
