Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 0/6] Mark the File parameter as OPTIONAL

["Guomin Jiang" <guomin.jiang@intel.com>]

Hi Laszlo,

I'm sad when saw the message. but I still appreciate the advice provided by you.

I think that this is not the only documentation issue, and should discuss in other topic.

Hi Jian, Chao,

Just for this issue, please give some feedback.

Best Regards
Guomin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 7:39 PM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Jiang, Guomin <guomin.jiang@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 0/6] Mark the File parameter as
> OPTIONAL
> 
> On 04/16/20 09:33, Guomin Jiang wrote:
> > File paramter should be optional according to the descritpion.
> >
> > Guomin Jiang (6):
> >   SecurityPkg/TPM: measure UEFI images without associated device paths
> >     again
> >   SecurityPkg/DxeImageAuth: Mark the File parameter as option
> >   SecurityPkg/DxeImageVerificationLib: Mark the File parameter as
> >     OPTIONAL
> >   MdeModulePkg/SecurityManagementLib: Mark the File parameter as
> >     OPTIONAL
> >   MdeModulePkg/SecurityStubDxe: Mark the File parameter as OPTIONAL
> >   MdePkg/Security2: Mark the File parameter as OPTIONAL.
> >
> >  .../Include/Library/SecurityManagementLib.h   |  2 +-
> >  .../DxeSecurityManagementLib.c                |  2 +-
> >  .../Universal/SecurityStubDxe/SecurityStub.c  |  2 +-
> >  MdePkg/Include/Protocol/Security2.h           |  2 +-
> >  .../DxeImageAuthenticationStatusLib.c         |  2 +-
> >  .../DxeImageVerificationLib.c                 |  2 +-
> >  .../DxeTpm2MeasureBootLib.c                   | 20 +++++++++----------
> >  .../DxeTpmMeasureBootLib.c                    | 20 +++++++++----------
> >  8 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> The more I look at the pre-patch code, the more the pre-existent
> documentation inconsistencies irritate me.
> 
> I withdraw from reviewing this series. Proceed as you and other reviewers
> see fit.
> 
> If you prefer, go ahead and simply revert 4b026f0d5af3. If you do so, I will not
> review that patch either. The existent function-level comments are broken,
> so I don't think anyone can really rely on them for guidance.
> 
> If you want to do the right thing, the whole comment mess has to be cleaned
> up. Up to you, but I'm out.
> 
> Laszlo