From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from blyat.fensystems.co.uk (blyat.fensystems.co.uk [54.246.183.96])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.8383.1623321794985055456
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Thu, 10 Jun 2021 03:43:16 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: ipxe.org, ip: 54.246.183.96, mailfrom: mcb30@ipxe.org)
Received: from pudding.home (unknown [IPv6:2a00:23c6:5495:5e00:e4c:7e47:a165:c0fc])
	by blyat.fensystems.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32FE744134;
	Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:43:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] UefiPayloadPkg: Add PayloadLoaderPeim which can load ELF payload
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, mhaeuser@posteo.de, "Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>
Cc: "Ma, Maurice" <maurice.ma@intel.com>, "Dong, Guo" <guo.dong@intel.com>,
 "You, Benjamin" <benjamin.you@intel.com>
References: <20210603062259.1390-1-ray.ni@intel.com>
 <20210603062259.1390-3-ray.ni@intel.com>
 <812b8f13-e951-5d27-9bd1-61711e6dd840@posteo.de>
 <CO1PR11MB4930C7F698C1BEA68E298AE68C379@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <486c5ab8-240e-3ac5-5a4a-7f368cb68644@posteo.de>
 <CO1PR11MB4930473BF50D013EDA2AB0AF8C369@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <8eb8db11-90c2-57e0-6868-3532c5af8073@posteo.de>
 <CO1PR11MB49307462C346035757486B638C359@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <785b1d37-9314-4909-7d1f-efa343018238@posteo.de>
 <CO1PR11MB4930EEAF56E68F0DA85C00CA8C359@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <af00b81b-b41b-7f72-dad1-61860120ca29@posteo.de>
From: "Michael Brown" <mcb30@ipxe.org>
Message-ID: <24a2cc8a-69c5-5961-448c-1d07a0628eda@ipxe.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:43:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <af00b81b-b41b-7f72-dad1-61860120ca29@posteo.de>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
	blyat.fensystems.co.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 10/06/2021 11:13, Marvin H=C3=A4user wrote:
> On 10.06.21 11:39, Ni, Ray wrote:
>>> Maybe for some context, my main issue at first was that the checks ar=
e
>>> all proper runtime checks with no ASSERTs at all, so I got confused h=
ow
>>> this situation could happen in a realistic scenario. I needed to trac=
e
>>> the ParseStatus data flow to understand the idea is basically the sam=
e
>>> as in the PE library. Code in a way is self-documenting, and this
>>> personally gave me a hard time understanding why it is written this w=
ay.
>>> But thanks for clarifying your intention! :)
>> I assume you are ok with the ParseStatus.
>> I will send new version based on mail discussion. Thanks!
>=20
> I don't need to be okay with anything, I'm not a maintainer nor an=20
> authority. But I gave my opinion, which is that it is dead code that=20
> makes the design/flow harder to understand for a third party, at no=20
> obvious benefit.

FWIW, I strongly agree with Marvin on this: having ParseStatus in its=20
current form is a bad idea since it adds no value but does incur a cost.

Thanks,

Michael