Dear Michael, I don't know if you had time to answer one follow-up question.
Obviously one thing that someone might want to do is to notify on protocol installs and trap installs of this protocol - e.g. so that something other than UefiBootManagerLib can manage and monitor HTTP boot, but still allowing the original callback to occur, by hooking it. Not sure if this counts as 'supported' or not (possibly not...) though I think it may count as 'quite likely to happen'. However, one could hook in such a way that the uninstall would succeed anyway, assuming that the function pointer within the original installed protocol is writeable. My question is: was the above is roughly what you were thinking of, that might cause the assert to fail, or, if not, if you had the time to give a very brief sketch of what else it might be (just a plausible, very rough example)? Certainly not saying you're wrong, just that it would be helpful (to me!) to understand what sort of thing you were thinking of! Many thanks in advance for any time you might have to reply. Mike Beaton -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#118016): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/118016 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/105368366/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
