[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86, efi: change name of efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter to efi_storage_paranoia
(2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>> (2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>>>> By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
>>>> variable to efi variable storage and shows "efivars: set_variable() failed:
>>>> status=-28" message.
>>>> - commit 31ff2f20d9003e74991d135f56e503fe776c127c
>>>> efi: Distinguish between "remaining space" and actually used space
>>>> - commit 8c58bf3eec3b8fc8162fe557e9361891c20758f2
>>>> x86,efi: Implement efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter
>>>> - commit f8b8404337de4e2466e2e1139ea68b1f8295974f
>>>> Modify UEFI anti-bricking code
>>>> When booting my system, remaining space of efi variable storage is about
>>>> 5KB. So there is no room that sets a new variable to the storage.
>>>> According to above works, efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter was prepared
>>>> for sane UEFI which can do gc and fulfills spec. But why need a system
>>>> with a sane UEFI set the parameter? It is wrong. A system with a broken
>>>> UEFI should set the parameter.
>>> And how does one know that his UEFI is broken?
>> I have no idea. But at least, bricked board is broken UEFI.
>> Do you know the issue occurs on several boards or specific board?
> On *many* boards including laptops....
> Please read the history of the whole issue.

Thank you for your comment.
I has read git log. But there is no information like this.
So I will read them of related threads again. Do you know good threads
to know the history of the issue?

Yasuaki Ishimatsu

> Thanks,
> //richard

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-08 11:41    [W:0.174 / U:0.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site