On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 07:22:49AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 10.01.19 01:37, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > Alex,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:18:16AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 15.11.18 05:58, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>> Logically, details on u-boot block devi
On 10.01.19 01:37, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Alex,
>
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:18:16AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15.11.18 05:58, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>> Logically, details on u-boot block device used to implement efi file
>>> protocol are mostly unnecessary, as well as being
Alex,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:18:16AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 15.11.18 05:58, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > Logically, details on u-boot block device used to implement efi file
> > protocol are mostly unnecessary, as well as being duplicated, in
> > efi_file structure.
> > Moreover
On 15.11.18 05:58, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Logically, details on u-boot block device used to implement efi file
> protocol are mostly unnecessary, as well as being duplicated, in
> efi_file structure.
> Moreover, a newly introduced flag, _EFI_DISK_FLAG_INVALID, should be
> honored in any file op
Logically, details on u-boot block device used to implement efi file
protocol are mostly unnecessary, as well as being duplicated, in
efi_file structure.
Moreover, a newly introduced flag, _EFI_DISK_FLAG_INVALID, should be
honored in any file operations via efi file protocol.
These observation sugg
5 matches
Mail list logo
