Search results for

Re: Need a sanity check re: efivarfs

by Jim Henderson

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:50:03 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 8:04 PM Jim Henderson <hendersj(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> [jhenderson@TheEarth ~]$ ls -l /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/ > > Well, the total size is about 45K. Of course, we do not know the > implementation details and overhead, but still it is very unlikely that > firmware needs additional 80K to manage 45K of data. It sounds more like > either firmware needs to be tricked into garbage collection or it leaks > variable storage. In both cases reinitializing settings may actually > bring available space up to the reasonable size. Good point and catch. I hadn't actually thought to add up the size of all the nodes in the filesystem. I'll mention that when I talk to support next. -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: Need a sanity check re: efivarfs

by Jim Henderson

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:53:05 -0400, Joe Salmeri wrote: > I have the same concern !!! > > One thing interesting, I've found since I started searching on this > topic is that it sure seems like there are quite a few different links > which are all recent ( last 6 months or so ) where people are running > into the issue of efivars being full or almost full. > > If you look at the list from my other msg where I sorted efivars by > size, > it seems that on my system these 4 items are about 50% of the consumed > space > > -rw-r--r-- root root 3/21/2024 13:15 10,448 > dbxDefault-8be4df61-93ca-11d2-aa0d-00e098032b8c -rw-r--r-- root root > 3/21/2024 13:15 17,964 > dbx-d719b2cb-3d3a-4596-a3bc-dad00e67656f -rw-r--r-- root root > 3/21/2024 13:15 23,216 > VARSTORE_OCMR_SETTINGS_NAME-a3a3b874-7636-4182-ba1e-f52c584494e3 > -rw-r--r-- root root 3/21/2024 13:15 33,481 > StdDefaults-4599d26f-1a11-49b8-b91f-858745cff824 On your system, if you total the space used by all of the nodes in the filesystem, does it add up to the total space reported as used? Andrei noted that on my system, it apparently does not. -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: Packaging Tree-Sitter-Grammar in openSUSE

by Matěj Cepl

On Fri Mar 22, 2024 at 1:26 PM CET, Björn Bidar wrote: > I want to get these changes into Factory. > Now I wonder how to best integrate them. How is your package different from the one which already is in Factory (or in https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/editors/tree-sitter)? What did you need to change? Neovim already uses it. Best, Matěj -- http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, @mcepl@floss.social GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8 How many Bavarian Illuminati does it take to screw in a light bulb? Three: one to screw it in, and one to confuse the issue.

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: Need a sanity check re: efivarfs

by Joe Salmeri

On 3/22/24 00:10, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > On 22.03.2024 00:37, Joe Salmeri wrote: >> -rw-r--r-- root root 3/21/2024 13:15 33,481 >> StdDefaults-4599d26f-1a11-49b8-b91f-858745cff824 With the large jump in >> percent used, could there be an issue with fwupdmgr that is causing your >> issue ? >> > > It is quite possible that your firmware only performs garbage collection > and/or compaction on demand or power on. Thanks, I have rebooted since I sent the message but the size used hasn't changed. > P.S. you systematically paste large content without line breaks that > makes it unreadable. My apologies, when I cut/paste that into the email, it did so as HTML. In Thunderbird it appeared fine with line breaks/etc because it was HTML and not plain text. -- Regards, Joe

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: Need a sanity check re: efivarfs

by Joe Salmeri

On 3/22/24 13:23, Jim Henderson wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:50:03 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 8:04 PM Jim Henderson <hendersj(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> [jhenderson@TheEarth ~]$ ls -l /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/ >> Well, the total size is about 45K. Of course, we do not know the >> implementation details and overhead, but still it is very unlikely that >> firmware needs additional 80K to manage 45K of data. It sounds more like >> either firmware needs to be tricked into garbage collection or it leaks >> variable storage. In both cases reinitializing settings may actually >> bring available space up to the reasonable size. > Good point and catch. I hadn't actually thought to add up the size of all > the nodes in the filesystem. I'll mention that when I talk to support > next. > Hi Jim, Any idea how we "trick" the firmware into garbage collection ? I have rebooted and that didn't change anything the amount used. I also summed up the sizes and it is quite smaller than the used amount. df -h /sys/firmware/efi/efivars Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on efivarfs 192K 167K 21K 89% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars FYI, if you have pwsh installed on Linux is is really easy to sum up the values: ( dir /sys/firmware/efi/efivars | Measure-Object -Sum Length ).Sum 125253 125253 is only 122.3K quite different from the 167K that df is reporting as used. I will be interested to hear what you find out after talking to support. Feel free to email me directly.... Thanks -- Regards, Joe

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: Need a sanity check re: efivarfs

by Joe Salmeri

On 3/22/24 13:25, Jim Henderson wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:53:05 -0400, Joe Salmeri wrote: > >> I have the same concern !!! >> >> One thing interesting, I've found since I started searching on this >> topic is that it sure seems like there are quite a few different links >> which are all recent ( last 6 months or so ) where people are running >> into the issue of efivars being full or almost full. >> >> If you look at the list from my other msg where I sorted efivars by >> size, >> it seems that on my system these 4 items are about 50% of the consumed >> space >> >> -rw-r--r-- root root 3/21/2024 13:15 10,448 >> dbxDefault-8be4df61-93ca-11d2-aa0d-00e098032b8c -rw-r--r-- root root >> 3/21/2024 13:15 17,964 >> dbx-d719b2cb-3d3a-4596-a3bc-dad00e67656f -rw-r--r-- root root >> 3/21/2024 13:15 23,216 >> VARSTORE_OCMR_SETTINGS_NAME-a3a3b874-7636-4182-ba1e-f52c584494e3 >> -rw-r--r-- root root 3/21/2024 13:15 33,481 >> StdDefaults-4599d26f-1a11-49b8-b91f-858745cff824 > On your system, if you total the space used by all of the nodes in the > filesystem, does it add up to the total space reported as used? > > Andrei noted that on my system, it apparently does not. > Any idea how we "trick" the firmware into garbage collection ? I have rebooted and that didn't change anything the amount used. I also summed up the sizes and it is quite smaller than the used amount. df -h /sys/firmware/efi/efivars Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on efivarfs 192K 167K 21K 89% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars FYI, if you have pwsh installed on Linux is is really easy to sum up the values: ( dir /sys/firmware/efi/efivars | Measure-Object -Sum Length ).Sum 125253 125253 is only 122.3K quite different from the 167K that df is reporting as used. I will be interested to hear what you find out after talking to support. Feel free to email me directly.... Thanks -- Regards, Joe

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: Need a sanity check re: efivarfs

by Joe Salmeri

On 3/22/24 15:12, Joe Salmeri wrote: > > On 3/22/24 00:10, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >> On 22.03.2024 00:37, Joe Salmeri wrote: >>> -rw-r--r-- root root 3/21/2024 13:15 33,481 >>> StdDefaults-4599d26f-1a11-49b8-b91f-858745cff824 With the large jump in >>> percent used, could there be an issue with fwupdmgr that is causing >>> your >>> issue ? >>> >> >> It is quite possible that your firmware only performs garbage >> collection and/or compaction on demand or power on. > > Thanks, I have rebooted since I sent the message but the size used > hasn't changed. > >> P.S. you systematically paste large content without line breaks that >> makes it unreadable. > > My apologies, when I cut/paste that into the email, it did so as HTML. > In Thunderbird it appeared fine with line breaks/etc because it was > HTML and not plain text. > Something strange going going on with Thunderbird because I just replied to something else and I specifically set it to send as plain text only and when I got the email it was reformatted without the line breaks. -- Regards, Joe

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: SDDM login screen no longer showing users with faces?

by Shawn W Dunn

On 3/22/24 07:53, Johannes Kastl wrote: > On 22.03.24 07:37 Johannes Kastl wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> is it just me or did the SDDM login screen recently stop displaying >> the list of users with their pictures/faces? >> >> I only have username/password prompt, that at least seems to remember >> the last user. But the pictures of the local users are gone. > > Funnily enough on the lock screen, i.e. after a user was logged in and > locked the screen, the picture is shown... > > Kind Regards, > Johannes That isn't surprising, as sddm isn't "part" of KDE, and the lock screen doesn't use it. The integration isn't as tight as gdm is with GNOME, where they're able to leverage gdm to provide the lock screen functionality.

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: Packaging Tree-Sitter-Grammar in openSUSE

by Björn Bidar

My "package" is not really a package but packaging infrastructure to package grammar so it can be shipped prebuilt in the repositories.

7 months, 2 weeks

Re: SDDM login screen no longer showing users with faces?

by Joe Salmeri

On 3/22/24 03:15, Philippe Condé wrote: > > > Le 22/03/2024 à 07:37, Johannes Kastl a écrit : >> Hi all, >> >> is it just me or did the SDDM login screen recently stop displaying >> the list of users with their pictures/faces? >> >> I only have username/password prompt, that at least seems to remember >> the last user. But the pictures of the local users are gone. >> >> Not sure when this started, if memory serves last week. Maybe with the >> big Plasma6 upgrade? >> >> I deleted the empty /etc/sddm.conf and moved an old (?) file from >> /etc/sddm.conf.d/, but no change. >> >> Kind Regards >> Johannes > I had the same problem and solved the problem adding the pictures in > /usr/share/sddm/faces. > These are jpg pictures saved as <user>.face.icon. > Not sure that this is the correct location because we should not save > user data in /usr but in /etc > > see also https://github.com/sddm/sddm > > -- > Philippe Condé If you add the face pictures using System Settings / users on Tumbleweed then the pictures are stored in /var/lib/AccountService/icons/ The file name will be the username without any extension. I added the face pictures that way when I was running plasma 5 and after updating to plasma 6 the face pictures still appeared on the greeter screen. -- Regards, Joe

7 months, 2 weeks

openSUSE Factory search results for query "a"