[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130528105041.GP14575@console-pimps.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:50:41 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Russ Anderson <rja@....com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
"matt.fleming@...el.com" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [regression, bisected] x86: efi: Pass boot services variable
info to runtime code
On Fri, 24 May, at 03:49:38PM, Russ Anderson wrote:
> Why does the kernel still try to create /sys/firmware/efivars/
> entries in the original failure even though efi_call_phys4()
> failed? Or does it always try to create those entries
> and GetNextVariable() blows up in the original failure
> but not in my experiment?
CONFIG_EFI_VARS will try to create /sys/firmware/efivars even without
the additional info from the early EFI boot variable code. The early
variable code is only a heuristic that is supposed to improve the
anti-bricking algorithm in the EFI variable code.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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