Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] Nvram-to-pstore
From: Aruna Balakrishnaiah
Date: Wed Jun 05 2013 - 05:00:49 EST
On Saturday 01 June 2013 10:55 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Should the core pstore fail to unlink partitions that don't have
an ->erase callback ? IE. Why would you let anyone erase the OFW
common partition for example ? That means that userspace tools
can no longer manipulate it but we certainly don't want to remove
it from the nvram itself.
Since I do not have a callback for erase in nvram, pstore
simply unlinks the file and will not delete the partition.
That leads to a deeper concern. Looking at how efi-pstore works,
it looks like they create a file for each var.
This looks like something valuable we could do for something like
the common partition since typically it's made of name,value pairs.
However, pstore is a flat space, while we have patitions which
themselves can be organized in name,value pairs (some at least)
I wonder if it's time to introduce pstore directories... Or do
we stick to our special tools to interpret/change the name,value
Since pstore infrastructure creates the file in read-only mode
creating files for name, value pairs will not be useful to us.
So for now, we need to stick to our tools to interpret/change
the name,value pairs.
And also, pstore filenames are controlled by pstore infrastructure
so that would need quite some changes in the pstore infrastructure.
I think for now it would be better to dump the contents of common
partition as it is.
Also do we want to add an ability to resize partitions ? Possibly
based on how much is written to them ?
Yes it will be good to that.
If your fine with patchset apart from the filenames of-config and common
partitions. I will post the next version of it with powerpc prefix.
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/