On 08/05/2015 11:42 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
В Wed, 5 Aug 2015 22:32:13 +0200
"Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko" пишет:
This patch improperly assumes that GRUB is the only thing in EFI that
transmits.
Actually since recently we try to ensure that grub *is* the only user
of network interface.
В Wed, 5 Aug 2015 22:32:13 +0200
"Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko" пишет:
> This patch improperly assumes that GRUB is the only thing in EFI that
> transmits.
Actually since recently we try to ensure that grub *is* the only user
of network interface.
> Your patch surely fixed your mach
Anyway that's not important, what is
important is that the current code doesn't work with hardware that
exists in the wild. If it's a firmware bug then fine, what do users do
if they have buggy firmware that isn't being updated anymore? I think
making grub more tolerant to crappy firmware is a g
Making user aware of such deeply technical stuff is almost always bad
thing. Moreover it's not always easy to set this variable early enough
Le 5 août 2015 10:50 PM, "Josef Bacik" a écrit :
> On 08/05/2015 04:39 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> On 08/05/2015 04:32 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wro
On 08/05/2015 04:39 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 08/05/2015 04:32 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
This patch improperly assumes that GRUB is the only thing in EFI that
transmits. Your patch surely fixed your machine but likely breaks some
other machines. Could you instead make an explicit
On 08/05/2015 04:32 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
This patch improperly assumes that GRUB is the only thing in EFI that
transmits. Your patch surely fixed your machine but likely breaks some
other machines. Could you instead make an explicit check for (void *)1
and add a comment on whi
This patch improperly assumes that GRUB is the only thing in EFI that
transmits. Your patch surely fixed your machine but likely breaks some
other machines. Could you instead make an explicit check for (void *)1 and
add a comment on which machine it's necessary?
Le 5 août 2015 10:28 PM, "Josef Baci
On 08/05/2015 04:04 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
В Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:36:37 -0400
Josef Bacik пишет:
The EFI SNP documentation isn't super clear on the value that is returned in
txbuf when calling into GetStatus. The documentation says its the pointer to
the recycle buffer, but the documentati
В Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:36:37 -0400
Josef Bacik пишет:
> The EFI SNP documentation isn't super clear on the value that is returned in
> txbuf when calling into GetStatus. The documentation says its the pointer to
> the recycle buffer, but the documentation for Transmit() says that it should
> be
>
The EFI SNP documentation isn't super clear on the value that is returned in
txbuf when calling into GetStatus. The documentation says its the pointer to
the recycle buffer, but the documentation for Transmit() says that it should be
the pointer to the buffer that we transmitted. On the boxes I'm
The EFI SNP documentation isn't super clear on the value that is returned in
txbuf when calling into GetStatus. The documentation says its the pointer to
the recycle buffer, but the documentation for Transmit() says that it should be
the pointer to the buffer that we transmitted. On the boxes I'm
11 matches
Mail list logo
