Re: History question about Base.h and its alternate parallel name space.... Should we change it?

[Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>]

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 9:49 AM, Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> If we move all of those, then what are the code review rules for a lib of type BASE?
> 
> Is there a preference to use the current BASE types?  Under what conditions are EFI type names allowed?
> 
> Is the a preference to stop using the current BASE types all together?
> 

Mike,

it seems messy to add types to Base.h to support Base Libs. So for example IPv4_ADDRESS and IPv6_ADDRESS got sucked into Base.h since an MdePkg Base Lib got added that used it. That does not really seem to scale to Base Libs in other packages. Thus I guess the preference would be to use the common EFI_* names. I'd not advocate removing the old names as that is going to break other folks Base LIbs. We could do the cleanup in TianoCore. If we want to deprecate the old names form, I guess that could be an ifdef to allow some depreciation in the future? 

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> Thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: afish@apple.com [mailto:afish@apple.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 9:24 AM
>> To: Felix Poludov <Felixp@ami.com>
>> Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>;
>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>> Subject: Re: [edk2] History question about Base.h and
>> its alternate parallel name space.... Should we change
>> it?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 18, 2019, at 9:08 AM, Felix Polyudov
>> <Felixp@ami.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mike,
>>> 
>>> I think EFI_GUID and EFI_STATUS should cover most of
>> the use cases.
>>> 
>> 
>> I think I missed a couple in my original mail....
>> 
>> But here are the typedef and #define names that get
>> remapped (or redone) in
>> MdePkg/Include/Uefi/UefiBaseType.h
>> 
>> typedef struct {
>>  UINT32  Data1;
>>  UINT16  Data2;
>>  UINT16  Data3;
>>  UINT8   Data4[8];
>> } GUID;
>> 
>> typedef struct {
>>  UINT8 Addr[4];
>> } IPv4_ADDRESS;
>> 
>> typedef struct {
>>  UINT8 Addr[16];
>> } IPv6_ADDRESS;
>> 
>> typedef UINT64 PHYSICAL_ADDRESS;
>> typedef UINTN RETURN_STATUS;
>> 
>> #define ENCODE_ERROR(StatusCode)
>> ((RETURN_STATUS)(MAX_BIT | (StatusCode)))
>> #define ENCODE_WARNING(StatusCode)
>> ((RETURN_STATUS)(StatusCode))
>> #define RETURN_ERROR(StatusCode)
>> (((INTN)(RETURN_STATUS)(StatusCode)) < 0)
>> #define RETURN_SUCCESS               0
>> #define RETURN_LOAD_ERROR            ENCODE_ERROR (1)
>> #define RETURN_INVALID_PARAMETER     ENCODE_ERROR (2)
>> ....
>> 
>> 
>> I think the cleanup would be as simple as moving things
>> from MdePkg/Include/Uefi/UefiBaseType.h to
>> MdePkg/Include/Base.h.
>> 
>> So:
>> 
>> typedef struct {
>>  UINT32  Data1;
>>  UINT16  Data2;
>>  UINT16  Data3;
>>  UINT8   Data4[8];
>> } GUID;
>> 
>> Becomes:
>> 
>> typedef struct {
>>  UINT32  Data1;
>>  UINT16  Data2;
>>  UINT16  Data3;
>>  UINT8   Data4[8];
>> } GUID, EFI_GUID;
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Andrew Fish
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kinney, Michael D
>> [mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:04 PM
>>> To: Felix Polyudov; 'Andrew Fish'; Kinney, Michael D
>>> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>> Subject: RE: [edk2] History question about Base.h and
>> its alternate parallel name space.... Should we change
>> it?
>>> 
>>> Felix,
>>> 
>>> Is there a specific set that would have the most
>> benefit?
>>> 
>>> Is EFI_GUID sufficient?
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Felix Polyudov [mailto:Felixp@ami.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 3:10 PM
>>>> To: 'Andrew Fish' <afish@apple.com>; Kinney, Michael
>> D
>>>> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [edk2] History question about Base.h and
>>>> its alternate parallel name space.... Should we
>> change
>>>> it?
>>>> 
>>>> I agree with Andrew.
>>>> In my opinion, moving alias types to Base.h will help
>> to
>>>> overcome certain practical inconveniences without
>>>> a significant impact on the ability to detect poorly
>>>> written Base libraries.
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-
>>>> bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Fish via
>> edk2-
>>>> devel
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 5:18 PM
>>>> To: Mike Kinney
>>>> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] History question about Base.h and
>>>> its alternate parallel name space.... Should we
>> change
>>>> it?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kinney, Michael D
>>>> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I though the reason was a bit more technical.  We
>> have
>>>> a
>>>>> MODULE_TYPE of BASE.  Library instances that use the
>>>> BASE
>>>>> MODULE_TYPE are declaring that the library
>> interfaces
>>>> are
>>>>> safe to be linked against a module of any other type
>>>> (SEC,
>>>>> PEI, DXE, SMM, DXE_RUNTIME, UEFI_DRIVER, UEFI_APP).
>>>>> 
>>>>> We needed to make sure that a lib of type BASE that
>>>>> includes Base.h as its top level include file only
>> has
>>>>> visibility to the types that are safe for all the
>>>> other
>>>>> module types.  It is up to the top level include
>> files
>>>>> for these other module types to provide the gasket
>> to
>>>>> the types in Base.h.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we add aliases in Base.h, then we may not get
>> build
>>>>> breaks when a lib of type BASE includes files that
>> are
>>>>> not compatible with BASE.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mike,
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think having aliases for return types really
>>>> helps Base code quality  as RETURN_SUCCESS is almost
>>>> always just a comment in a header file, and only
>> exists
>>>> in a .c file. Thus RETURN_* seem like a needless
>>>> duplication, best case it is a comment that the code
>> is
>>>> Base.
>>>> 
>>>> I will agree that not having EFI_GUID defined does
>> case
>>>> all the PPI and Protocol files to blow up if you try
>> to
>>>> include them. The failure case I was helping explain
>> was
>>>> some one trying to include a PPI, that included a
>>>> Protocol that contained a data structure that was
>>>> needed. But I would posit that the definition of a
>>>> (EFI_)GUID is state agnostic. Having access to a PPI
>> or
>>>> Protocol definition does not break Base code, what
>>>> breaks Base code is trying to access some service
>> that
>>>> does not exist. To get more that EFI_GUID you are
>> going
>>>> to need to include Uefi.h, PiPei.h, PiDxe.h, etc. and
>>>> that will block doing anything that is not Base.
>>>> 
>>>> So I'm asking if redefining the name for EFI_GUID to
>>>> GUID for Base is really that helpful?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Andrew Fish
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-
>>>>>> bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Fish via
>>>> edk2-
>>>>>> devel
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 1:00 PM
>>>>>> To: edk2-devel <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [edk2] History question about Base.h and
>> its
>>>>>> alternate parallel name space.... Should we change
>>>> it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I had some one ask me recently why EFI_GUID does
>> not
>>>>>> work with #include <Base.h>. I explained they
>> needed
>>>> to
>>>>>> use GUID vs. EFI_GUID. That prompted the question
>> of
>>>> why
>>>>>> we have 2 names for the same thing..... Well the
>>>>>> historical answer was kind of political as some
>> team
>>>>>> wanted to use edk2, but not implement EFI. Thus we
>>>> have
>>>>>> EFI types without the EFI_ prefix in Base.h.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So all this got me thinking....  Maybe it makes
>> sense
>>>> to
>>>>>> move some of the renaming from
>>>>>> MdePkg/Include/Uefi/UefiBaseType.h to Base.h?
>>>> Removing
>>>>>> the Base.h duplicate types would potentially hit
>> lots
>>>> of
>>>>>> code [1] and break merges with other code bases
>>>> (break
>>>>>> other peoples Base libs etc.).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> These lines in MdePkg/Include/Uefi/UefiBaseType.h
>>>> would
>>>>>> get moved to MdePkg/Include/Base.h:
>>>>>> typedef GUID                      EFI_GUID;
>>>>>> typedef RETURN_STATUS             EFI_STATUS;
>>>>>> #define EFIERR(_a)                ENCODE_ERROR(_a)
>>>>>> #define EFI_ERROR(A)              RETURN_ERROR(A)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> #define EFI_SUCCESS               RETURN_SUCCESS
>>>>>> #define EFI_LOAD_ERROR            RETURN_LOAD_ERROR
>>>>>> #define EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER
>>>>>> RETURN_INVALID_PARAMETER
>>>>>> #define EFI_UNSUPPORTED
>> RETURN_UNSUPPORTED
>>>>>> #define EFI_BAD_BUFFER_SIZE
>>>> RETURN_BAD_BUFFER_SIZE
>>>>>> #define EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL
>>>>>> RETURN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL
>>>>>> #define EFI_NOT_READY             RETURN_NOT_READY
>>>>>> #define EFI_DEVICE_ERROR
>> RETURN_DEVICE_ERROR
>>>>>> #define EFI_WRITE_PROTECTED
>>>> RETURN_WRITE_PROTECTED
>>>>>> #define EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES
>>>>>> RETURN_OUT_OF_RESOURCES
>>>>>> #define EFI_VOLUME_CORRUPTED
>>>>>> RETURN_VOLUME_CORRUPTED
>>>>>> #define EFI_VOLUME_FULL
>> RETURN_VOLUME_FULL
>>>>>> #define EFI_NO_MEDIA              RETURN_NO_MEDIA
>>>>>> #define EFI_MEDIA_CHANGED
>>>> RETURN_MEDIA_CHANGED
>>>>>> #define EFI_NOT_FOUND             RETURN_NOT_FOUND
>>>>>> #define EFI_ACCESS_DENIED
>>>> RETURN_ACCESS_DENIED
>>>>>> #define EFI_NO_RESPONSE
>> RETURN_NO_RESPONSE
>>>>>> #define EFI_NO_MAPPING            RETURN_NO_MAPPING
>>>>>> #define EFI_TIMEOUT               RETURN_TIMEOUT
>>>>>> #define EFI_NOT_STARTED
>> RETURN_NOT_STARTED
>>>>>> #define EFI_ALREADY_STARTED
>>>> RETURN_ALREADY_STARTED
>>>>>> #define EFI_ABORTED               RETURN_ABORTED
>>>>>> #define EFI_ICMP_ERROR            RETURN_ICMP_ERROR
>>>>>> #define EFI_TFTP_ERROR            RETURN_TFTP_ERROR
>>>>>> #define EFI_PROTOCOL_ERROR
>>>> RETURN_PROTOCOL_ERROR
>>>>>> #define EFI_INCOMPATIBLE_VERSION
>>>>>> RETURN_INCOMPATIBLE_VERSION
>>>>>> #define EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION
>>>>>> RETURN_SECURITY_VIOLATION
>>>>>> #define EFI_CRC_ERROR             RETURN_CRC_ERROR
>>>>>> #define EFI_END_OF_MEDIA
>> RETURN_END_OF_MEDIA
>>>>>> #define EFI_END_OF_FILE
>> RETURN_END_OF_FILE
>>>>>> #define EFI_INVALID_LANGUAGE
>>>>>> RETURN_INVALID_LANGUAGE
>>>>>> #define EFI_COMPROMISED_DATA
>>>>>> RETURN_COMPROMISED_DATA
>>>>>> #define EFI_HTTP_ERROR            RETURN_HTTP_ERROR
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> #define EFI_WARN_UNKNOWN_GLYPH
>>>>>> RETURN_WARN_UNKNOWN_GLYPH
>>>>>> #define EFI_WARN_DELETE_FAILURE
>>>>>> RETURN_WARN_DELETE_FAILURE
>>>>>> #define EFI_WARN_WRITE_FAILURE
>>>>>> RETURN_WARN_WRITE_FAILURE
>>>>>> #define EFI_WARN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL
>>>>>> RETURN_WARN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL
>>>>>> #define EFI_WARN_STALE_DATA
>>>> RETURN_WARN_STALE_DATA
>>>>>> #define EFI_WARN_FILE_SYSTEM
>>>>>> RETURN_WARN_FILE_SYSTEM
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm interested what folks think about a change like
>>>>>> this? This change makes the alternate names
>> optional.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess we could also leave the old Base.h
>>>> definitions
>>>>>> in Base.h and cleanup the code to only use the EFI
>>>> form,
>>>>>> but that is a much bigger change?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] RETURN_SUCCSS usage: git grep -w RETURN_SUCCESS
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andrew Fish
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>>> 
>>>> Please consider the environment before printing this
>>>> email.
>>>> 
>>>> The information contained in this message may be
>>>> confidential and proprietary to American Megatrends,
>>>> Inc.  This communication is intended to be read only
>> by
>>>> the individual or entity to whom it is addressed or
>> by
>>>> their designee. If the reader of this message is not
>> the
>>>> intended recipient, you are on notice that any
>>>> distribution of this message, in any form, is
>> strictly
>>>> prohibited.  Please promptly notify the sender by
>> reply
>>>> e-mail or by telephone at 770-246-8600, and then
>> delete
>>>> or destroy all copies of the transmission.
>>> 
>>> Please consider the environment before printing this
>> email.
>>> 
>>> The information contained in this message may be
>> confidential and proprietary to American Megatrends,
>> Inc.  This communication is intended to be read only by
>> the individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by
>> their designee. If the reader of this message is not the
>> intended recipient, you are on notice that any
>> distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly
>> prohibited.  Please promptly notify the sender by reply
>> e-mail or by telephone at 770-246-8600, and then delete
>> or destroy all copies of the transmission.
>