From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::241; helo=mail-it0-x241.google.com; envelope-from=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-it0-x241.google.com (mail-it0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B72021122E5E for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x241.google.com with SMTP id 139-v6so15681325itf.0 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:27:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WCplhdLRsv40vK4X7Bic3OtqWpG/gzI8ELqfOGDMgyA=; b=H+N2sfmysWZkxNmJyymatfMRllExw2ZEgiN2cz2dyeHFoJGhfQa/q2qZj3YWQdPN8m gGz4EpwJpxlw9Nup8O1Rzi1H6wjLlYSalSPLagryDkIMjh+WDfDz9j5u2lRJdTNf03Ry M2wNWZkNz7fahUvAzUefoo82So7DxBNVnWkVI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WCplhdLRsv40vK4X7Bic3OtqWpG/gzI8ELqfOGDMgyA=; b=rAtYyU4c0F0AwiHg5N6pGcumpfmj6lnt3mMwEsVI/m+ldM5fJhAO/6ghJhdCq4mUYA sH6Utup9mJBqYu3112DptD4wtjLwY9agMl2kYtaDW73oA2VlElwoQRIoWnem5CBIns8o WTZFjNQq7Kf2MtnkJUvspgDQsamsyjmGlCxxCEU4rE8ND2P9W/GNee8bHAsIlsukgFFo UE28gkKhAWWE0eRoLq58EV9+vpPhmv3U6apDkMhmZFa8OywS5cEdZqBZi4dxa0RjMMC6 am9y44CTkUNAJfDcVcl7hVvAlw1Rjm+esHa7GkzA4sYskXohiJTvC/+MXOaTIPFChtNi glRw== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CzeDvbyeBSGJqEfK5l+wlNsapliop7+54UCv0F4gnhkoirdAYR GK+FbpSX1XKy5U7LYWRJIg4LdlaGboH86REkegz/lLCdBnM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdaUPYznZSM0FCkFueWO55ZB/Okj9Bl14xTs6Iteq/OQo1x8Ejp1BNlbxwd8JdgaZmqH/MBvGMUPKfKvG+Pxom8= X-Received: by 2002:a24:52cd:: with SMTP id d196-v6mr3434672itb.58.1536254835814; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:27:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a6b:1c06:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:27:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1687b7c4-4bce-d184-8e23-d156d3a4a9df@redhat.com> References: <20180906134523.2036-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20180906134523.2036-5-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1687b7c4-4bce-d184-8e23-d156d3a4a9df@redhat.com> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 19:27:15 +0200 Message-ID: To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Liming Gao , Jiewen Yao , Star Zeng , Michael D Kinney , Chao Zhang Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] EdkCompatibilityPkg: remove PE/COFF header workaround for ELILO on IPF X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 17:27:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 6 September 2018 at 18:53, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 09/06/18 15:45, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Now that Itanium support has been dropped, we can remove the various >> occurrences of the ELILO on Itanium PE/COFF header workaround. >> >> Link: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=816 >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel >> --- >> EdkCompatibilityPkg/Foundation/Library/EdkIIGlueLib/Library/BasePeCoffLib/BasePeCoff.c | 60 +++----------------- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > > Should we care about EdkCompatibilityPkg at all? Because: > > * IPF removal seems not to have occurred to EdkCompatibilityPkg: > > $ git grep -w IPF -- 'EdkCompatibilityPkg/*inf' > [bunch of hits] > > * In , you wrote: > >> [...] there is a big difference between IPF drivers that are never >> referenced by modern platforms, and workarounds in generic code that >> are present in every modern build for every platform, and are only >> intended for a specific build of ELILO. > >> The former is essentially dead code. The latter gets executed many >> times on every boot of every modern UEFI platform in existence. > > Under that distinction, I would classify EdkCompatibilityPkg as the > first category, i.e., essentially dead code. > OK, fair enough. I don't care about EdkCompatibilityPkg at all, I just wanted to be thorough, but if others don't care either, I'll drop this from v2.