Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:25:17 +0100 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Add support for using efivars as a pstore backend |
| |
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:16:55PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > + efi_pstore_info.buf = kmalloc(4096, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (efi_pstore_info.buf) { > + efi_pstore_info.bufsize = 1024; > + efi_pstore_info.data = efivars; > + mutex_init(&efi_pstore_info.buf_mutex); > + pstore_register(&efi_pstore_info); > + } > > I'd imagined #ifdef CONFIG_PSTORE around this (and the > efi_pstore_info definition) rather than providing stubs > for the !PSTORE case.
We usually seem to frown on #ifdefs in the middle of functions. We could probably make this easier by adding a pstore_enabled that's #defined to 0 in the !PSTORE case, then the compiler ought to just get rid of it all.
> You should avoid a memory leak with: > > if (!pstore_register(&efi_pstore_info)) > kfree(efi_pstore_info.buf);
Ah, true.
> I've also been thinking some more about how to handle a > system that has more than one pstore back-end available. > I still don't have any good ideas how to make use of more > than one backend - but it occurs to me that we may need > a way to let the user choose which to use (e.g. in the > unlikely event that a BIOS bug made one of ERST or EFI > unusable by pstore). The current "whoever registers first > gets to use it" now seems inadequate.
Mm. Given that the name of the source is in the file, there's no namespacing issues. In an ideal world I think we'd register all of them in order to provide a better chance of at least one of them ending up in actual persistent storage.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |