From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (mail-wm1-f66.google.com [209.85.128.66]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web09.7200.1581691709905962484 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:48:30 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=UJlZd6+e; spf=pass (domain: linaro.org, ip: 209.85.128.66, mailfrom: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org) Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id a6so10915982wme.2 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:48:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n3pbTgFnwKAf084RsP2+x34ZcKSGNhg16PGjd9JERx8=; b=UJlZd6+eJqWA93uyZuloTz0DQTUHYXO059YvntBOO0FPqQcyWLvxzNXLdNlGS/U1V0 RDQe6oBtBCKv0j9oBo0B8U/f+Hqi8Ury+7pFQyriPhcB/daY7Aa9gQln75+oN9HoXuqo rICv1mZjGzhFQRmFy1Nn3U0Srccp406Ama4iyIRXM2KM1msqnHXMcoJS5zHi5+xC/LxA FougXFagYJyxZ/w0kkPf8BeuzbVwsh/a71hdbnFfCjttdx4LF/9PEJXSGmDQXHqCo4JA QGbupn05b+ii0ljXXW9XhakPIeOTVsI8v3m/xK1Ysn7gfkFrUQoF2XHTBhAvzbq20u5T RB4w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n3pbTgFnwKAf084RsP2+x34ZcKSGNhg16PGjd9JERx8=; b=pYAXwiJh0EKs/ca4K96tl5+nVUzTmByWcuAtAr1F9SJpJv/+QP5I0wbQd8wWGw4ruE FR8VpdFVzZXxnyjN22nqydbg7egt8u52NbGyeERqZSRkUO+wEM/AyZ73oMcaSqpvRklr qxOYSB1WPev44aW7fRN+uWFGd8xZUMrtIWYHPeYIrlPZmrxLQEnzqtvGTbPjgnfH0Ly5 csSP+4mf68DzQaxfvUjNMFvB9TBaZtUBj2HX5dNMlztD0NOLuef3I/JCnoMW2j4nTX+1 gH7aQ9jh5xxLNmXnFBnUMEzYcC9eRXSeOU3nTt2Wxf3DNzPCumTjPtskwxZS/mq1XbHl LhsA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXRfZSANFkVsamdkHcp1C8mwrTxlk8Tp5iSVu0ESvz78jvbXQ0S NNfhA0MyAbjAs1goh42Saul5gBXYzQNmglYEB3ANtICZkSLBDg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw8z/3/13bYV0/cQqVxCipG+invzz60N9JYi8MmmiB8+GstccglUsuY+JviDf6IvTAqn7te0Ef448lPGYQSrts= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cc81:: with SMTP id p1mr4912125wma.62.1581691708074; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 06:48:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200211180304.21669-1-ard.biesheuvel@arm.com> <734D49CCEBEEF84792F5B80ED585239D5C434F30@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <071f3dac-9518-9452-fbaf-3de4a48f8e25@redhat.com> <734D49CCEBEEF84792F5B80ED585239D5C43B65F@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <3036ae47-af76-b82a-6123-890f185ee02e@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3036ae47-af76-b82a-6123-890f185ee02e@redhat.com> From: "Ard Biesheuvel" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:48:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/1] OvmfPkg: add 'initrd' shell command to expose Linux initrd via device path To: edk2-devel-groups-io , Laszlo Ersek Cc: "Ni, Ray" , "leif@nuviainc.com" , "philmd@redhat.com" , "Gao, Zhichao" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 15:17, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 02/14/20 01:55, Ni, Ray wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Laszlo Ersek > >> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 7:15 AM > >> To: Ni, Ray ; devel@edk2.groups.io; Ard Biesheuvel > >> > >> Cc: leif@nuviainc.com; philmd@redhat.com; Gao, Zhichao > >> > >> 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). > Thanks for the review and the clarification. I will change this into a dynamic command for v2, but it may be a while before I get back to it, since this feature is still under discussion on the Linux side as well.