richard@xxxxxx writes: > Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu: >> >> 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? > "Oh my board is briked because I wrote too much into a variable, maybe setting > efi_storage_paranoia would have saved me. Let's try with the next board..." ;) > Agreed. It's hard for people to fix their briked motherboard. At least it's hard for someone who is the first time meet this issue like me. :-( and IMO, at least 51% of uefi firmwares on the world is buggy... ;) However, if we simply make all buggy firmware become a brick, the vendors will more careful in their next generation of products... But it's painful for everyone, both customers and vendors. > Thanks, > //richard > -- > 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 -- 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
