On 2018-09-24 09:42, Alex Kiernan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:23 PM Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
>>
>> In the case where one deletes an already-non-existing variable, or sets
>> a variable to the value it already has, there is no point in writing the
>> environment back, thus reducing wear on t
On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 08:42 +0100, Alex Kiernan wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:23 PM Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
> >
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:23 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> In the case where one deletes an already-non-existing variable, or sets
> a variable to the value it already has, there is no point in writing the
> environment back, thus reducing wear on the underlying storage
> device.
>
> Signed-off-by
Hi
On Mon., 24 Sep. 2018, 8:19 am Rasmus Villemoes,
wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 21:22, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > In the case where one deletes an already-non-existing variable, or sets
> > a variable to the value it already has, there is no point in writing the
> > environment back, thus reducing
On 2018-09-05 21:22, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> In the case where one deletes an already-non-existing variable, or sets
> a variable to the value it already has, there is no point in writing the
> environment back, thus reducing wear on the underlying storage
> device.
ping
In the case where one deletes an already-non-existing variable, or sets
a variable to the value it already has, there is no point in writing the
environment back, thus reducing wear on the underlying storage
device.
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes
---
tools/env/fw_env.c | 10 +-
1 file c
6 matches
Mail list logo