Messages in this thread | | | From | Seiji Aguchi <> | Subject | RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 2/3] Hold multiple logs | Date | Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:49:11 +0000 |
| |
Tony,
> The big question is what happens when EFI runs out of space.
According to EFI specification, set_variable service returns EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES. If it doesn't work, the firmware should be fixed.
>Matthew avoided the question by implementing the "just one record" policy.
I think we need to ask Matthew the reason why he introduced "just one record" policy rather than guessing it by reading his original source code.
Seiji
> -----Original Message----- > From: Luck, Tony [mailto:tony.luck@intel.com] > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:56 PM > To: Don Zickus; Seiji Aguchi > Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; mikew@google.com; Matthew Garrett (mjg@redhat.com); dle- > develop@lists.sourceforge.net; Satoru Moriya > Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 2/3] Hold multiple logs > > > > What is the harm of not using this and just letting the number be > > > infinite (or until EFI runs out of space)? Is it a big deal if extra failures are logged? > > The big question is what happens when EFI runs out of space. Matthew avoided the question by implementing the "just one record" > policy. Was this because he has some specific knowledge about what happens, or does he just have an irrational[1] fear that the EFI > implementation will handle this poorly? > > Without some tests on at least a couple of different platforms that show that EFI handles out of space conditions gracefully, I continue > to have concerns. > > -Tony > > [1] Perhaps his fears are rational given how many other places he has found EFI not doing what we'd expect or want.
| |