> On 13 Mar 2017, at 4:20 PM, Michael Olbrich <m.olbrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 08:24:42AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 03:38:40PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>> Sascha is this one ok? >> >> I asked Michael to have a look at this series, so far he didn't find >> time. > > I'm not sure I like it this way. The old way matches what the Linux kernel > does so it's familiar. And the mix of guids and 'names' is rather > cluttered because they are not grouped separately. we can split them in sub dirs /efivars/by-guid/<guid>/var and keep the known one in /efivars/Efi/… /efivars/barebox/… /efivars/systemd/… as we will use known guid for most of the time as does linux too most of the time > Maybe keep the old version and add something like the by-name etc. symlinks > used in udev: > > <guid-for-foo>-bar > <something> > EFI > [...] > foo > bar -> ../../<guid-for-foo>-bar <guid-for-foo>-bar is un readable and we need to parse a filename which is a prone to error even when creating new variable and today we only allow to create var for barebox guid in the "user space” So this is easier to handle and when you ls it at the end is hard to read The efivarfs is for user not C Code That’s why I prefer to have a design that is easy to read Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
