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

[Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>]

(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?

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

> 
> Thanks,
> //richard
>