Re: [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: Lock should be acquired

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

Hi Jeff,

On 04/18/17 04:16, Jeff Fan wrote:
> SMM BSP's *busy* state should be acquired. We could use AcquireSpinLock()
> instead of AcquireSpinLockOrFail().
> 
> Cc: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com>
> Cc: Michael Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
> ---
>  UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c b/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c
> index a1d16b4..e03f1e0 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/MpService.c
> @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ BSPHandler (
>    //
>    // The BUSY lock is initialized to Acquired state
>    //
> -  AcquireSpinLockOrFail (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Busy);
> +  AcquireSpinLock (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Busy);
>  
>    //
>    // Perform the pre tasks
> 

what symptoms did you experience without the fix?

Thanks
Laszlo