On Mon, 04 Aug, at 05:05:53PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> I think that makes sense. As I said, I don't have a strong preference
> either way regarding the NMI handling, as it does not affect the
> systems I am primarily concerned with (and it sounds like a big hack
> anyway). What I /am/ concerned
On 4 August 2014 16:49, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug, at 03:13:28PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> Well, again, the spec allows it. But I am happy to remove it as it
>> does not affect ARM anyway
>
> Right, I understand why you added these now.
>
> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't do
On Mon, 04 Aug, at 03:13:28PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> Well, again, the spec allows it. But I am happy to remove it as it
> does not affect ARM anyway
Right, I understand why you added these now.
My personal opinion is that we shouldn't do the NMI dancing unless
absolutely necessary, e.g. beca
On 4 August 2014 15:00, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul, at 09:09:16AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
>> reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
>> serialized. Use a spinlock to serialize al
On Fri, 11 Jul, at 09:09:16AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
> reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
> serialized. Use a spinlock to serialize all Runtime Services with respect
> to all others, e
According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
serialized. Use a spinlock to serialize all Runtime Services with respect
to all others, even if this is more than strictly needed.
Signed-off-by: Ard
