> 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
