Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: change name of efi_no_storage_paranoia parameterto efi_storage_paranoia

[Richard Weinberger]

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.

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/