> 1. combine timestamp, count and part into "id". > for now, in efi-pstore.c, *id = part. and we could simply change it > to unique one. F.E. *id = (timestamp * 100 + part) * 100 + count. My opinion close to 1. But, the "*id" should not be the complex one like (timestamp * 100 + part) * 100 + count. Rather, it should be a simple sequential number beginning with 1. - Remove "id" member from pstore_read_info struct. - Introduce a global sequential counter like "static u64 efi_pstore_read_count" (or add the member to pstore_info structure?) - Initialize to "1" in efi_pstore_open(). - Increment it in efi_pstore_read(). If we can do it, we don't need to touch a code of pstore filesystem and can avoid regressions of other backend drivers. Seiji > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-efi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-efi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Madper Xie > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:01 PM > To: Luck, Tony > Cc: Seiji Aguchi; Madper Xie; keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx; anton@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bbboson@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] make all stored entries accessible. > > > tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx writes: > > >> So, do you mean efivars should fix to use the "id" in a proper way? > > > > It would avoid the need for all these tests, and additions to the filename to guarantee > > uniqueness. > > > > Not sure what options efivars has to create a unique, persistent "id" for each > > record. It's a fundamental part of how ERST works (though the unique ID is just > > based around a timestamp). > > > Okay, maybe there are three options here: > 1. combine timestamp, count and part into "id". > for now, in efi-pstore.c, *id = part. and we could simply change it > to unique one. F.E. *id = (timestamp * 100 + part) * 100 + count. > 2. change the id's type. let id become a string. > so every backend could write anything to id. then it will become a > part of filename in pstore filesystem. (but we need fix all backends > since we modified api.) > 3. apply the patches I have sent... even if the filename will be ugly > and gory... > Which one do you prefer? > >> I acked Madper's patch 2/2 earlier today, but when I look at your test result, I'm not sure if > >> it is reasonable for users to make multiple numbers visible to the file name. > >> > >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root root 17499 Oct 30 13:41 dmesg-erst-5940651313304961029--2129078373-1383165669 > > > > after I added the "count = 0" initialization the filename gets a tiny bit less > > scary: > > > > -r--r--r-- 1 root root 17499 Oct 30 13:41 dmesg-erst-5940651313304961029-0-1383165669 > > > > -Tony > > > -- > Best, > Madper Xie. > -- > 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 -- 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
