From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932138Ab2LEWWB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:22:01 -0500
Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:35108 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753733Ab2LEWV5 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:21:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20121205202254.GA25398@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <1345739803-21017-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com>
 <CAErSpo6dn_0b8Ngx9VT=ARs_UXQftEx=2Kczeqemtmo0XyKzuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121203200241.GG5906@thinkpad-t410> <CAErSpo7S2+Vt+9bkGLx_=AY9aSGCvAnkHfqu01gTj=eKs7btNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121205202254.GA25398@srcf.ucam.org>
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:21:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAErSpo7c5Ph+GufivPt2XFoTbRnAoLnNdZwcc69QMCFdavNJjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Use PCI ROMs from EFI boot services
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 01:09:25PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
>> That's right; nobody stepped up to fix the section mismatch.  I'm
>> happy to fold in your fix, especially if Matthew acks it.
>
> Yes, sorry, I've been way behind on pretty much everything for the past
> few months. Please do add my Ack.
>
>> David, Eric, what about the kexec question?  It looks to me like this
>> wouldn't make things worse than they are today.  If I understand
>> correctly, today we don't use ROM data from EFI on either an initial
>> boot or a kexec.  After this patch, we could use EFI ROM data on the
>> initial boot, but not after a kexec.  So it's worse in the sense that
>> the kexec case doesn't match the initial boot, but at least it's not
>> something that used to work and is now broken.
>
> I think I'd agree here - it's not ideal, but it's no more broken than
> the current situation.

OK, I applied Seth's fix, added his Tested-by, and put this series in
my -next branch.  I plan to merge it during the v3.8 merge window next
week.

Thanks!

Bjorn