From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.byosoft.com.cn (mail.byosoft.com.cn [58.240.74.242]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.3593.1613799845048639119 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 21:44:06 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=none, err=permanent DNS error (domain: byosoft.com.cn, ip: 58.240.74.242, mailfrom: gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn) Received: from DESKTOPS6D0PVI ([58.246.60.130]) (envelope-sender ) by 192.168.6.13 with ESMTP for ; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 13:43:59 +0800 X-WM-Sender: gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn X-Originating-IP: 58.246.60.130 X-WM-AuthFlag: YES X-WM-AuthUser: gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn From: "gaoliming" To: "'Laszlo Ersek'" , "'Li, Walon'" , Cc: "'Wang, Sunny \(HPS SW\)'" , , References: <20210218032611.1594-1-walon.li@hpe.com> <002801d7065a$5d81f420$1885dc60$@byosoft.com.cn> <4d25bf28-e147-365a-64d4-6ecf0a1184d2@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4d25bf28-e147-365a-64d4-6ecf0a1184d2@redhat.com> Subject: =?UTF-8?B?5Zue5aSNOiBbZWRrMi1kZXZlbF0gW1BBVENIXSBNZGVNb2R1bGVQa2cvVWVmaUJvb3RNYW5hZ2VyTGliOiBQdXQgQm9vdE1lbnUgYXQgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiBCb290T3JkZXI=?= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 13:43:59 +0800 Message-ID: <007e01d7074b$634978a0$29dc69e0$@byosoft.com.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIv3NEyLfmGUpP6HXiw3wfsNtdi+AGvDhzuAg13kpwBVobHB6mGQ/ew Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: zh-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. =20 Thanks Liming > -----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6----- > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Laszlo Ersek > =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: = 2021=E5=B9=B42=E6=9C=8819=E6=97=A5 23:52 > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Li, Walon ; gaoliming > ; devel@edk2.groups.io > =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; = ray.ni@intel.com; > hao.a.wu@intel.com > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] = MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Put > BootMenu at the end of BootOrder >=20 > 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 > > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 8:59 AM > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Li, Walon > > Cc: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; lersek@redhat.com; > ray.ni@intel.com; hao.a.wu@intel.com > > Subject: =E5=9B=9E=E5=A4=8D: [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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > Of course when we change code, the burden of justification is on the > patch that's being proposed; so I agree with the question. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Laszlo