Hi Heinrich, On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 15:10, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 7/3/23 04:47, Masahisa Kojima wrote: > > The devnum value of the blk_desc structure starts from 0, > > current efi_bl_create_block_device() function creates > > two "efiblk#0" devices for the cases that blk_find_max_devnum() > > returns -ENODEV and blk_find_max_devnum() returns 0(one device > > found in this case). > > > > The devnum value for the "efiblk" name needs to be incremented. > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahisa Kojima <masahisa.koj...@linaro.org> > > --- > > lib/efi_driver/efi_block_device.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/efi_driver/efi_block_device.c > > b/lib/efi_driver/efi_block_device.c > > index add00eeebb..e37bfe6e80 100644 > > --- a/lib/efi_driver/efi_block_device.c > > +++ b/lib/efi_driver/efi_block_device.c > > @@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ efi_bl_create_block_device(efi_handle_t handle, void > > *interface) > > devnum = 0; > > else if (devnum < 0) > > return EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES; > > + else > > + devnum++; /* device found, note that devnum starts from 0 */ > > Shouldn't we simply use blk_next_free_devnum() instead of duplicating > the logic here?
Yes, Akashi-san also already pointed out, and I already sent v2 with blk_next_free_devnum(). Thanks, Masahisa Kojima > > Best regards > > Heinrich > > > > > name = calloc(1, 18); /* strlen("efiblk#2147483648") + 1 */ > > if (!name) >