[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:42:01 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
To: joeyli <jlee@...e.com>
CC: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
"Fleming, Matt" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"rja@....com" <rja@....com>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "jkosina@...e.cz" <jkosina@...e.cz>,
"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>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...ux.intel.com" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"oneukum@...e.de" <oneukum@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Modify UEFI anti-bricking code
On Thu, 2013-06-06 at 13:05 +0800, joeyli wrote:
> + if (!(attributes & EFI_VARIABLE_NON_VOLATILE))
> + return EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES;
I'd move this up to the top of the function, and just return 0 - there's
no risk of the firmware causing problems if it's a volatile variable, so
we should probably just pass it down to the firmware and return an error
from there.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists