Re: [edk2-devel] Patch List for 201911 stable tag

["Liming Gao" <liming.gao@intel.com>]

Hi Stewards and all:
  New bugs are for 201911 stable tag. Can you give the comments for them?

Bug List (those all have pass code review):
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50931 [PATCH] MdeModulePkg: LzmaCustomDecompressLib.inf don't support EBC anymore
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50990 [PATCH V1 1/1] MdeModulePkg/Variable: Initialize local variable
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50989 [PATCH V2] BaseTools:fix regression issue for platform .map file
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50936 [PATCH] BaseTools:fixed Build failed issue for Non-English OS

Thanks
Liming
>-----Original Message-----
>From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of
>Liming Gao
>Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 10:52 PM
>To: devel@edk2.groups.io; leif.lindholm@linaro.org; Laszlo Ersek
><lersek@redhat.com>
>Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; 'afish@apple.com'
><afish@apple.com>
>Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Patch List for 201911 stable tag
>
>Laszlo and Leif:
>  Thanks for your detail review. I will continue to monitor the coming changes
>for 201911 stable tag.
>
>Thanks
>Liming
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Leif
>Lindholm
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 3:02 AM
>> To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D
><michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; 'afish@apple.com' <afish@apple.com>;
>> devel@edk2.groups.io
>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Patch List for 201911 stable tag
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 06:50:19PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> > On 11/19/19 15:25, Gao, Liming wrote:
>> > > Hi Stewards and all:
>> > >   I collect current patch lists in devel mail list. Those patch
>> > >   contributors request to add them for 201911 stable tag. Because the
>> > >   time is close to Hard Feature Freeze, I want to collect your
>> > >   feedback for below patches.
>> > >
>> > > Feature List (those all have pass code review):
>> > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50602 [PATCH V2] BaseTools:
>Add [packages] section in dsc file
>> >
>> > This patch can be merged during the Soft Feature Freeze. It was posted
>> > before the Soft Feature Freeze, and also reviewed (by Bob, i.e. a
>> > BaseTools Maintainer) before the Soft Feature Freeze.
>> >
>> > As far as I can see, there is still an outstanding question from you, to
>> > Zhiju ("Can you show what test are done for this new support?"), so I
>> > think we should await the response to that.
>> >
>> > Note that the patch should not be merged once the Hard Feature Freeze
>> > starts, so there are ~3 days for Zhiju to answer the question about
>> > testing (and for you to acknowledge that you are OK with the reply).
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > > Bug List (those all have pass code review):
>> > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50625 [PATCH v1]
>MdeModulePkg/NvmExpressDxe: Fix wrong queue size for async IO
>> queues
>> >
>> > Looks very much like a bugfix to me, so it's suitable for merging even
>> > during the Hard Feature Freeze.
>>
>> I agree. But I am still slightly nervous about changing such a
>> fundamental part of such a fundamental driver. Certainly if it is
>> going in, I want it in ASAP, not just at the end of soft freeze - to
>> give us as much time as possible to revert it if the fix exposes
>> latent errors in previously working systems.
>>
>> > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50406 [PATCH 1/1]
>MdePkg/Include: Add missing definitions of SMBIOS type 42h in
>> SmBios.h
>> >
>> > Based on Abner's response in the thread, this change does not appear
>> > necessary for fixing actual functionality bugs; it rather completes a
>> > previously incomplete feature addition. And Abner is not in a rush to
>> > catch the upcoming stable tag with the patch. I suggest to delay it.
>> >
>> > If others disagree, I won't insist; the above is just my preference.
>>
>> I'm OK either way.
>>
>> > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50661 [PATCH] UefiCpuPkg:
>Update the coding styles
>> >
>> > Hmmm, quite undecided on this one. Does not fix a functionality bug
>> > either, but what it fixes *are* a coding style bugs, and the patch is
>> > low risk. I'm leaning towards merging it.
>>
>> I am against merging this, even though it's low-risk.
>>
>> The process says:
>> "By the date of the soft feature freeze, developers must have sent
>> their patches to the mailing list and received positive maintainer
>> reviews (Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags)."
>> This received Acks 4 days late.
>>
>> If it came with a commit message indicating the incorrect comment
>> syntax caused problems with document generation, then maybe it could
>> be considered from a bugfix standpoint. But it didn't and it's too
>> late to re-scope the change at this point.
>>
>> I also dislike the mixing of doxygen formating changes and plain
>> whitespace changes. Even though trivial, it ought to be split up.
>>
>> > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50662 [PATCH] MdePkg:
>Update the comments of IsLanguageSupported
>> >
>> > This was even reviewed by a package maintainer (= you) before the SFF,
>> > so it can definitely go in.
>>
>> Agree (if cutting it close).
>>
>> > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50663 [PATCH 0/3] Add
>missing strings for uni files
>> >
>> > First of all, the structure of this series is wrong; please see my
>> > feedback here:
>> >
>> >   https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50666
>> >
>> > (The two patches discussed just above were incorrectly included in the
>> > same posting.)
>> >
>> > Second, the three patches for the UNI files add too much brand new text
>> > for my taste, for them to be considered bugfixes. The patches were
>> > posted in time for the SFF, but the maintainer reviews came too late:
>> >
>> >   https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50872
>> >   https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50869
>> >   https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50870
>> >
>> > I suggest postponing.
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>> > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50866 [PATCH V1 0/2]
>Improve PeiInstallPeiMemory() description
>> >
>> > I'm seriously confused by the subject prefixes in this patch thread.
>> > What's going on with the version numbers?
>> >
>> >   [edk2-devel] [PATCH V1 0/2] Improve PeiInstallPeiMemory() description
>> >   [edk2-devel] [PATCH V3 1/2] MdeModulePkg PeiCore: Improve
>PeiInstallPeiMemory() description
>> >   [edk2-devel] [PATCH V1 2/2] MdePkg PiPeiCis.h: Improve
>PeiInstallPeiMemory() description
>> >
>> > Other than that... I'm torn. I guess I could be convinced that these
>> > patches are indeed bugfixes, so I'm leaning towards merging them.
>>
>> Non-functional change submitted after start of soft-freeze?
>> I don't see why it should be considered.
>>
>> > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/50841 [PATCH V2 1/1]
>MdeModulePkg PeiCore: Fix typos
>> >
>> > Personally I'm not happy about this patch. It's way too large for my taste:
>> >
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/PeiMain.inf             | 10 ++--
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/FwVol/FwVol.h           | 20 +++----
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/PeiMain.h               | 52 ++++++++--------
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/Dependency/Dependency.c | 12 ++--
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/Dispatcher/Dispatcher.c | 51 ++++++++--------
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/FwVol/FwVol.c           | 63 ++++++++++----------
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/Hob/Hob.c               |  4 +-
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/Image/Image.c           | 10 ++--
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/Memory/MemoryServices.c | 18 +++---
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/PeiMain/PeiMain.c       |  2 +-
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/Ppi/Ppi.c               |  4 +-
>> >  MdeModulePkg/Core/Pei/Security/Security.c     | 12 ++--
>> >  12 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > and it mixes multiple kinds of changes:
>> >
>> > "Fixes typos and clarifies some wording throughout PeiCore."
>> >
>> > When reviewing such a patch, the reviewer has a difficult time telling
>> > apart purely syntactic (typo) fixes from semantic (wording) fixes. As a
>> > reviewer I would suggest splitting this patch at least in two (typos vs.
>> > semantics). Then I could be convinced such a set of two patches is
>> > purely a bugfix.
>> >
>> > I'm leaning towards "postpone" on this one, but I can see why people
>> > would think "that's arbitrary". I guess I'll have to defer to others in
>> > this instance.
>>
>> Non-functional change submitted after start of soft-freeze?
>> I don't see why it should be considered.
>>
>> I also agree on the needs splitting up bit.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Leif
>>
>>
>
>
>