於 四，2013-11-21 於 17:53 +0800，joeyli 提到：
> 於 四，2013-11-21 於 18:13 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
> > (2013/11/20 17:08), joeyli wrote:
> > > 於 三，2013-11-20 於 15:26 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
> > >> (2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
> > >>>
>
於 四，2013-11-21 於 18:13 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
> (2013/11/20 17:08), joeyli wrote:
> > 於 三，2013-11-20 於 15:26 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
> >> (2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
> >>>
> >>> isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
> >>>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/20 17:08), joeyli wrote:
於 三，2013-11-20 於 15:26 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
(2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
Hi Matt,
Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
(2013/11/20 17:08), joeyli wrote:
於 三，2013-11-20 於 15:26 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
(2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
Hi Matt,
Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
於 四，2013-11-21 於 18:13 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
(2013/11/20 17:08), joeyli wrote:
於 三，2013-11-20 於 15:26 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
(2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
Hi Matt,
Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/11 19:54), Matt
於 四，2013-11-21 於 17:53 +0800，joeyli 提到：
於 四，2013-11-21 於 18:13 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
(2013/11/20 17:08), joeyli wrote:
於 三，2013-11-20 於 15:26 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
(2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
Hi Matt,
Sorry for
於 三，2013-11-20 於 15:26 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
> (2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
> >
> > isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
> >
> >> Hi Matt,
> >>
> >> Sorry for late the reply.
> >>
> >>
> >> (2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki
於 三，2013-11-20 於 15:26 +0900，Yasuaki Ishimatsu 提到：
(2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
Hi Matt,
Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Matt,
I
(2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
>
> isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Sorry for late the reply.
>>
>>
>> (2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Matt,
I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
This
(2013/11/19 12:16), Madper Xie wrote:
isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
Hi Matt,
Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Matt,
I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
This does not become bricked even if I
isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Sorry for late the reply.
>
>
> (2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
>>> This does not become bricked even if I use all efi variable
Hi Matt,
Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Matt,
I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
This does not become bricked even if I use all efi variable storage.
Thus I want a way to not need to specify
Hi Matt,
Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Matt,
I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
This does not become bricked even if I use all efi variable storage.
Thus I want a way to not need to specify
isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com writes:
Hi Matt,
Sorry for late the reply.
(2013/11/11 19:54), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Matt,
I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
This does not become bricked even if I use all efi variable storage.
Thus I
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
> This does not become bricked even if I use all efi variable storage.
> Thus I want a way to not need to specify efi_no_storage_paranoia
> parameter.
The efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter was
Howdy Yasuaki,
I know some boxes with small NVRAM (less than 64kb?) will meet many
issues if we always keep ~5kb free space.
But if we really do not keep some free space as default, many box will
become a brick. (In fact, I just fixed a bricked dell xps 8500 last
week. 5kb is not enough
Hi Matt,
I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
This does not become bricked even if I use all efi variable storage.
Thus I want a way to not need to specify efi_no_storage_paranoia
parameter.
Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu
(2013/11/08 23:34), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov, at 07:32:51PM, Yasuaki
Hi Matt,
I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
This does not become bricked even if I use all efi variable storage.
Thus I want a way to not need to specify efi_no_storage_paranoia
parameter.
Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu
(2013/11/08 23:34), Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov, at 07:32:51PM, Yasuaki
Howdy Yasuaki,
I know some boxes with small NVRAM (less than 64kb?) will meet many
issues if we always keep ~5kb free space.
But if we really do not keep some free space as default, many box will
become a brick. (In fact, I just fixed a bricked dell xps 8500 last
week. 5kb is not enough
On Mon, 11 Nov, at 05:52:59PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Hi Matt,
I uses FUJITSU's x86 box.
This does not become bricked even if I use all efi variable storage.
Thus I want a way to not need to specify efi_no_storage_paranoia
parameter.
The efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter was introduced
On Fri, 08 Nov, at 07:32:51PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> > Everything started with an issue that killed Samsung laptops:
> > http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/22855.html
> >
> > Later it was found that if you write too much into UEFI variables many
> > UEFI implementations will do bad things.
>
>
(2013/11/08 19:29), Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 08.11.2013 11:25, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>> (2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
(2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki
Am 08.11.2013 11:25, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
> (2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>>> (2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
> By following works, my system very often
(2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>> (2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
variable to efi
Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
> (2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>>> By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
>>> variable to efi variable storage and shows "efivars: set_variable()
(2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>> By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
>> variable to efi variable storage and shows "efivars: set_variable() failed:
>> status=-28" message.
>>
>> - commit
rich...@nod.at writes:
> Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>>
>> According to above works, efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter was prepared
>> for sane UEFI which can do gc and fulfills spec. But why need a system
>> with a sane UEFI set the parameter? It is wrong. A system with a
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
> By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
> variable to efi variable storage and shows "efivars: set_variable() failed:
> status=-28" message.
>
> - commit 31ff2f20d9003e74991d135f56e503fe776c127c
> efi:
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
variable to efi variable storage and shows efivars: set_variable() failed:
status=-28 message.
- commit 31ff2f20d9003e74991d135f56e503fe776c127c
efi: Distinguish
rich...@nod.at writes:
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
According to above works, efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter was prepared
for sane UEFI which can do gc and fulfills spec. But why need a system
with a sane UEFI set the parameter? It is wrong. A system with a broken
(2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
variable to efi variable storage and shows efivars: set_variable() failed:
status=-28 message.
- commit
Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
(2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
variable to efi variable storage and shows efivars: set_variable() failed:
(2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
(2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
variable to efi variable storage
Am 08.11.2013 11:25, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
(2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
(2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
By following works, my system very often fails
(2013/11/08 19:29), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 11:25, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
(2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
(2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
By
On Fri, 08 Nov, at 07:32:51PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
Everything started with an issue that killed Samsung laptops:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/22855.html
Later it was found that if you write too much into UEFI variables many
UEFI implementations will do bad things.
Thanks for the
By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
variable to efi variable storage and shows "efivars: set_variable() failed:
status=-28" message.
- commit 31ff2f20d9003e74991d135f56e503fe776c127c
efi: Distinguish between "remaining space" and actually used space
-
By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
variable to efi variable storage and shows efivars: set_variable() failed:
status=-28 message.
- commit 31ff2f20d9003e74991d135f56e503fe776c127c
efi: Distinguish between remaining space and actually used space
- commit
38 matches
Mail list logo
