Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg: add 'initrd' shell command to expose Linux initrd via device path

["Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 02/14/20 01:55, Ni, Ray wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 7:15 AM
>> To: Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io; Ard Biesheuvel
>> <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
>> Cc: leif@nuviainc.com; philmd@redhat.com; Gao, Zhichao
>> <zhichao.gao@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg: add 'initrd' shell
>> command to expose Linux initrd via device path
>>
>> On 02/12/20 15:21, Ni, Ray wrote:
>>>> (3) However: I think this should be added as a Dynamic Command instead.
>>>> I'm basing this on the message of commit 0961002352e9 ("ShellPkg/tftp:
>>>> Convert from NULL class library to Dynamic Command", 2017-11-28),
>> which
>>>> is the first commit in edk2 ever to introduce a Dynamic Command.
>>>>
>>>> And the commit message there says:
>>>>
>>>>     The guideline is:
>>>>     1. Only use NULL class library for Shell spec defined commands.
>>>>     2. New commands can be provided as not only a standalone application
>>>>        but also a dynamic command. So it can be used either as an
>>>>        internal command, but also as a standalone application.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not asking for the command to be usable as a separate application,
>>>> but I think we might want to follow the first guideline.
>>>>
>>>> (I've checked the UEFI Shell 2.2 spec. While it talks about dynamic
>>>> commands, it does not seem to spell out guideline#1. So I think it's
>>>> rather an edk2-specific guideline than a standard one. Nonetheless we
>>>> might want to adhere to it.)
>>>
>>> Laszlo, thanks for the comments😊.
>>> I didn't remember that I said these guideline publicly.
>>> The reason behind that is we can have the same shell binary everywhere
>>> and new non-spec commands can be added through dynamic command
>> without
>>> impacting the shell binary.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation -- this means that the NULL class lib
>> approach is good for OvmfPkg after all. I'm putting the remaining parts
>> of this patch back on my review queue (it will take a while).
> 
> Please don't misunderstand my points.

OK. From your response, I thought that the guidelines you captured in
the commit message in question were only for internal shell builds.

> I still prefer to use dynamic commands
> for all non-spec defined shell internal commands.
> Sorry for the confusion caused by my previous mail.

It's OK, I understand better now. So I guess I'll de-queue the review of
the rest of this patch once again, and wait for the next version (with
the dynamic command implementation).

Thank you!
Laszlo