On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 03:48:26PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 07:42:37AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 15:34 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > I agree that a revert is probably the right thing to do here, but the > > > original patch was there to permit a more accurate calculation of the > > > amount of nvram in use, not to provide additional debug information. > > > Reverting it is going to differently break a different set of systems > > > > The only ones that are broken are the Samsung ones. Samsung claims to > > have fixed their UEFI firmware, so we could refer any problems to them. > > No, reverting this gets us back to the old state of refusing any writes > if more than 50% of the variable store *appears* to be used, regardless > of whether it's actually used. Which, unfortunately, makes it impossible > to install Linux on most UEFI machines.
When did writing EFI variables to nvram become necessary to boot on UEFI? And if it is necessary, why is it that only linux boot loaders that use EFI stubs (generally grub2) need it? The current kernel boots using EFI/grub and EFI/elilo. It is just when EFI stubs are used that the boot fails. I'm missing the background on why linux needs to write so many EFI variables to nvram that it fills up nvram. What is that all about? > In any case, Samsung clearly > haven't fixed this problem on a pile of machines that have already > shipped. Which means the previous patch(es) that caused the bricking should get pulled, too. -- Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc r...@sgi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
