(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 > -- 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
