RE: [PATCH v4 2/2] efi: an sysfs interface for user to update efi firmware

["Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@intel.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1630 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:10 PM
> 
> On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 08:30 +0000, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Bottomley
> [mailto:James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:19 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I think we've all agreed we can do it ... it's now a question of whether
> we
> > > can stomach the ick factor of actually initiating a transaction in close ... I'm
> still
> > > feeling queasy.
> >
> > The file "close" here can I understand that the file system will call the
> "release"
> > function at the file_operations struct?
> > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/fs.h#L1538
> >
> > So, James you are meaning that we could initiating the update transaction
> > inside the f_ops->release() and return the error code if update failed in this
> > function?
> 
> Well, that's what I was thinking.  However the return value of ->release
> doesn't get propagated in sys_close (or indeed anywhere ... no idea why
> it returns an int) thanks to the task work additions, so we'd actually
> have to use the operation whose value is propagated in sys_close() which
> turns out to be flush.
> 
> James
> 

Okay, I think I got you. Just to double check for in case: you are meaning
to implement it at f_ops->flush() instead of f_ops->release().


Thanks & Regards,
Wilson

ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥