> How does efivars backend handle "unlink(2)" in the pstore file system. > pstore will call the backend->erase function passing the "id". The > backend should then erase the right record from persistent storage. > > With the ((timestamp * 100 + part) * 100 + count function - you can > easily reverse it to find timestamp, part and count - would that make life > easier for the backend to find the record to be erased? If you use a > hash function you will need to check each record and compute the > hash to see if it matches (probably not a big deal because the backend > will generally only hold a handful of records).
By generating the id in efi_pstore_write(), and using it to a variable name, It works at an erasing time as well. The root cause of this problem is that efivars used "part" as id. It was a wrong way. So, we should not keep it. Seiji N�Р骒r��y����b�X�肚�v�^�)藓{.n�+�伐�{��赙zXФ�≤�}��财�z�&j:+v�����赙zZ+��+zf"�h���~����i���z��wア�?�ㄨ��&�)撷f��^j谦y�m��@A�a囤� 0鹅h���i