回复: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Put BootMenu at the end of BootOrder

["gaoliming" <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>]

Walon:
  Thanks for your detail explanation. I would like to include more detail so that we can easily know why we make this change.   

Thanks
Liming
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> 发送时间: 2021年2月19日 23:52
> 收件人: Li, Walon <walon.li@hpe.com>; gaoliming
> <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; devel@edk2.groups.io
> 抄送: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <sunnywang@hpe.com>; ray.ni@intel.com;
> hao.a.wu@intel.com
> 主题: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Put
> BootMenu at the end of BootOrder
> 
> On 02/19/21 02:33, Li, Walon wrote:
> > Hi Liming,
> >
> > As edk2 design, any new boot options should be put at the end of BootOrder
> because these are NEW . That means system should "append" BootOrder
> instead of override original order.
> > For example, if system has three boot options currently - Boot0001,
> Boot0002, Boot0003 and then one new option - Boot0000 will be added. The
> order should become Boot0001,Boot0002,Boot0003,Boot0000. However, in
> this case, BootmanagerMenu doesn't follow this rule. We set "zero" priority so
> system would put BootManagerMenu boot option at start.
> > This case is a corner case because the symptom only be gotten when user
> delete BootManagerMenu on OS or EFI shell. But it's a possible case. For
> keeping behavior consistent, we should keep BootManagerMenu option
> behavior as same as others boot option.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Walon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>
> > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 8:59 AM
> > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Li, Walon <walon.li@hpe.com>
> > Cc: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <sunnywang@hpe.com>; lersek@redhat.com;
> ray.ni@intel.com; hao.a.wu@intel.com
> > Subject: 回复: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib:
> Put BootMenu at the end of BootOrder
> >
> > Walon:
> >   Can you specify the detail reason why BootManagerMenu should be
> placed at end of BootOrder?
> 
> In addition to Walon's answer, I'd like to point out that the current
> code doesn't seem to explain why BootManagerMenu was ever placed at the
> front.
> 
> Of course when we change code, the burden of justification is on the
> patch that's being proposed; so I agree with the question.
> 
> However, answering that question is easier if the pre-patch code has an
> explicit explanation, and that explanation can be shown to be wrong (or
> at least to have missed a corner case or similar). If the pre-patch code
> is undocumented, then arguing for the new code is more difficult.
> 
> Laszlo