Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe: change block size to 4KB

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 05/18/17 23:09, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 05/18/17 22:56, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> On 2017-05-18 12:40:30, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 05/18/17 20:49, Jordan Justen wrote:
>>>> On 2017-05-18 08:14:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe/Fvb.h b/OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe/Fvb.h
>>>>> index 4247d21d72f8..beb11e3f9a90 100644
>>>>> --- a/OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe/Fvb.h
>>>>> +++ b/OvmfPkg/EmuVariableFvbRuntimeDxe/Fvb.h
>>>>> @@ -58,8 +58,14 @@ typedef struct {
>>>>>  //
>>>>>  // Constants
>>>>>  //
>>>>> -#define EMU_FVB_BLOCK_SIZE (FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareSize))
>>>>> -#define EMU_FVB_SIZE (2 * FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareSize))
>>>>> +#define EMU_FVB_BLOCK_SIZE \
>>>>> +  EFI_PAGE_SIZE
>>>>> +#define EMU_FVB_NUM_SPARE_BLOCKS \
>>>>> +  EFI_SIZE_TO_PAGES ((UINTN)FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareSize))
>>>>> +#define EMU_FVB_NUM_TOTAL_BLOCKS \
>>>>> +  (2 * EMU_FVB_NUM_SPARE_BLOCKS)
>>>>> +#define EMU_FVB_SIZE \
>>>>> +  (EMU_FVB_NUM_TOTAL_BLOCKS * EMU_FVB_BLOCK_SIZE)
>>>>>  #define FTW_WRITE_QUEUE_SIZE \
>>>>>    (FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwWorkingSize) - \
>>>>>     sizeof (EFI_FAULT_TOLERANT_WORKING_BLOCK_HEADER))
>>>>
>>>> In the cases where we don't exceed 80 columns, I don't see the excess
>>>> newlines as helping here, style-wise.
>>>
>>> My first preference would have been
>>>
>>> #define SHORT_MACRO_NAME           replacement text 1
>>> #define ANNOYINGLY_LONG_MACRO_NAME replacement text 2
>>>
>>> That is, to keep both the macro names and the replacement texts aligned.
>>> However, that way I wouldn't fit into 80 chars on some lines, and then
>>> breaking only *some* macro definitions to multiple lines looked
>>> horrible. Which is why I opted for the current layout: it is uniform,
>>> and it does preserve the alignment for both macro names and replacement
>>> texts separately.
>>
>> I don't think you would make a block of function calls all multiline
>> if one call required it. I see your point and I agree that aligning
>> things can be nice if it works out. It seems like it doesn't in this
>> case.
>>
>> Could FTW_SPARE_SIZE and FTW_WORKING_SIZE macros help?
> 
> Assuming you mean those as shorthands for the FixedPcdGet32() macro
> invocations, they wouldn't (fully); FTW_WRITE_QUEUE_SIZE would remain
> overlong even after such a replacement.
> 
>>
>> If you feel strongly about this current format, then keep it, as I
>> don't feel too strongly about it.
> 
> I don't feel strongly about this layout, so if (when) you have an
> incremental patch, I'll be glad to review it. What I do feel strongly
> about :) is not wanting to retest the -bios scenarios, which is sort of
> required once these macros are touched. (The ASSERT() below is a lot
> easier / quicker to test.) Due to the testing impact, I prefer to keep
> the current layout.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you add to the entry-point an assert:
>>>>
>>>>   ASSERT(FixedPcdGet32 (PcdFlashNvStorageFtwSpareSize) %
>>>>          EMU_FVB_BLOCK_SIZE == 0);
>>>
>>> Should I squash that into this patch?
>>
>> Yeah. No need for resend.
> 
> Thanks, I'll squash it then.

Commit 7e8329267ecb.