[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGTjWtA5_Xk6EMF6UmTTfWGCM+3imoGXn5awP4ANM4w=NgO=-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:24:36 -0800
From: Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] EFI: Add support for variables longer than 1024 bytes
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:22 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 03:06 PM, Mike Waychison wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2011 02:57 PM, Mike Waychison wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well,l we could *not* support returning all the data field for
>>>> datasize > 1024, and simply truncate the field. We are limited by
>>>> PAGE_SIZE by sysfs here anyway (so we don't really want to have a
>>>> variable size memcpy in efivar_show_raw).
>>>>
>>>
>>> That may be the biggest reason to avoid sysfs. As far as I know sysfs
>>> doesn't allow seq_file to be used.
>>>
>>
>> Completely agreed. I don't think a seq_file is warranted in this case
>> in particular, but the dummification of the interfaces in sysfs sure
>> makes it hard to do anything that isn't a "single value string".
>>
>
> Well, seq_file is a good way to deal with arbitrary length data.
>
seq_file maps well to arbitrary record counts (keeping records
self-consistent), but not so well for arbitrarily large records.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists