From: "Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud" <samer.el-haj-mahmoud@arm.com>
To: "rfc@edk2.groups.io" <rfc@edk2.groups.io>,
"ray.ni@intel.com" <ray.ni@intel.com>,
"leif@nuviainc.com" <leif@nuviainc.com>,
"devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: "Felixp@ami.com" <Felixp@ami.com>,
"Doran, Mark" <mark.doran@intel.com>,
Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>,
"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum specifications
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 21:10:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DB7PR08MB32603778543EEE8AC0E2474C90BC0@DB7PR08MB3260.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
Leif, Ray,
I have not seen any discussion on this thread since March(!)...
Please see my comments below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ni, Ray via
> Groups.Io
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 1:15 AM
> To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; leif@nuviainc.com; devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Felixp@ami.com; Doran, Mark <mark.doran@intel.com>; Andrew Fish
> <afish@apple.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum
> specifications
>
> >
> > ## Github
> > New repositories will be added for holding the text changes and the source
> code.
> >
> > Specification text changes will be held within the affected source
> > repository, in the Github flavour of markdown, in a file (or split
> > across several files) with .md suffix.
>
> What's the case when multiple .MD files are needed?
>
> > (This one may break down where we have a specification change
> > affecting multiple specifications, but at that point we can track it
> > with multiple BZ entries)
>
> >
> >
> > ## Source code
> > In order to ensure draft code does not accidentally leak into
> > production use, and to signify when the changeover from draft to final
> > happens, *all* new or modified[1] identifiers need to be prefixed with the
> relevant BZ####.
> >
> > [1] Modified in a non-backwards-compatible way. If, for example, a
> statically
> > sized array is grown - this does not need to be prefixed. But a tag in a
> > comment would be *highly* recommended.
>
> If a protocol is enhanced to provide more interfaces with increased revision
> number, would you like the protocol name to be prefixed with BZ####?
> Or just the new interfaces added to the protocol are prefixed the BZ####?
> I think just prefixing the new interfaces can meet the purpose.
>
I think pre-fixing the new interfaces is sufficient. Otherwise, you need to modify all code using the existing interfaces (for build verification)
> But the protocol definition is changed, it also needs to be prefixed according
> to this flow.
> Can you clarify a bit more?
>
A changed protocol definition is not backwards compatible, and typically results in a new protocol GUID. In that case, it really becomes a new definition and need to be pre-fixed per this rule. Right?
> >
> > ### File names
> > New public header files need the prefix. I.e. `Bz1234MyNewProtocol.h`
> > Private header files do not need the prefix.
> >
> > ### Contents
> >
> > The tagging must follow the coding style used by each affected codebase.
> > Examples:
> >
> > | Released in spec | Draft version in tree | Comment |
> > | --- | --- | --- |
> > | `FunctionName` | `Bz1234FunctionName` | |
> > | `HEADER_MACRO` | `BZ1234_HEADER_MACRO` | |
>
> If FunctionName or HEADER_MACRO is defined in non-public header files, I
> don't think they require the prefix. Do you agree?
>
> > For data structures or enums, any new or non-backwards-compatible
> > structs or fields require a prefix. As above, growing an existing
> > array in an existing struct requires no prefix.
> >
> > | `typedef SOME_STRUCT` | `BZ1234_SOME_STRUCT` | Typedef only
> [2] |
> > | `StructField` | `Bz1234StructField` | In existing struct[3] |
> > | `typedef SOME_ENUM` | `BZ1234_SOME_ENUM` | Typedef only
> [2] |
> >
> > [2] If the struct or enum definition is separate from the typedef in the
> public
> > header, the definition does not need the prefix.
>
> What does "separate" mean?
> Does it mean "struct or enum in the public header BzXXX.h don't need the
> prefix"?
> If yes, then I think macros defined in BzXXX.h also don't need the prefix.
>
> > [3] Individual fields in newly added typedefd struct do not need prefix, the
> > struct already carried the prefix.
> >
> > Variable prefixes indicating global scope ('g' or 'm') go before the BZ prefix.
> >
> > | `gSomeGuid` | `gBz1234SomeGuid` | |
> >
> > Local identifiers, including module-global ones (m-prefixed) do not
> > require a BZ prefix.
>
> I think only the names (struct type name, enum type name, interface name,
> protocol/ppi name) defined in public header files need the BZ prefix when the
> public header doesn't have prefix.
> Right?
>
The way I read it, *all* new (and non-backward modified) identifiers (typedef struct, typedef enum, and new structfield in existing struct) need to be pre-fixed, regardless if the filename is prefixed or not.
Correct?
>
>
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
next reply other threads:[~2020-05-14 21:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-14 21:10 Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud [this message]
[not found] <160F0156FEDC6091.6323@groups.io>
2020-05-20 10:19 ` [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum specifications Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-03-23 19:05 Leif Lindholm
2020-03-25 5:14 ` [edk2-rfc] " Ni, Ray
2020-05-12 15:29 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-05-05 15:21 ` Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DB7PR08MB32603778543EEE8AC0E2474C90BC0@DB7PR08MB3260.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox