於 一，2013-06-17 於 11:17 +0100，Matt Fleming 提到：
> On Mon, 17 Jun, at 10:46:28AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > To me, all this looks like it is being done on phenomenological basis,
> > taking a particular build of a particular firmware implementation as
> > the reference. Imo we shouldn't change the code in this way. This
> > also applies to the fact that the step is being doubled rather than
> > e.g. tripled: With it ending up a "again" anyway (see below), what's
> > the point of avoiding one more of the iterations?
> > 
> > Generic considerations would result in the increment being at least
> > 3 * element size; twice the element size assumes that the allocator
> > would behave in certain ways (like returning the head or tail part of
> > a larger piece of memory).
>  
> I have no issue with changing the multiplier. But let's get
> clarification from Zach as to what exactly is going on here.
> 
> > I agree that there ought to be an upper limit. But a single retry here
> > again looks like a tailored solution to a particular observed (mis-)
> > behavior, rather than something resulting from general considerations.
> 
> What value would you suggest for the retry?
> 

Currently grub2 retry unlimited times like attached patch.

But, I also agree need have a upper limit.


Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee