On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 15:34 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:43:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > 4) The revert is easy, and the functionality the original patch provided > > was a marginal increase in debug output to begin with... > > I agree that a revert is probably the right thing to do here, but the > original patch was there to permit a more accurate calculation of the > amount of nvram in use, not to provide additional debug information. > Reverting it is going to differently break a different set of systems The only ones that are broken are the Samsung ones. Samsung claims to have fixed their UEFI firmware, so we could refer any problems to them. The signature of the Samsung failure, which this is guarding against is that the laptop gets bricked, so it really is a nasty choice of poisons we have to pick... Could we hedge the QueryVariableInfo checks with a test for Samsung in the UEFI identity strings? James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
