From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mout02.posteo.de (mout02.posteo.de [185.67.36.66])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web09.8033.1623320005506792796
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Thu, 10 Jun 2021 03:13:26 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@posteo.de header.s=2017 header.b=RU0h5j+5;
 spf=pass (domain: posteo.de, ip: 185.67.36.66, mailfrom: mhaeuser@posteo.de)
Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) 
	by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABAD82400FD
	for <devel@edk2.groups.io>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:13:22 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017;
	t=1623320002; bh=o7SyMcwlWMhMEvPTBwD0LTyCKCotVEBvsWbUKLo5DP4=;
	h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:From;
	b=RU0h5j+5LGeU/13ufQzlQWliTIYmowWVxGP6vSyy/A5fWi3bTUUWvgodkXVi38Qvi
	 IH8jRl2IHeQKBY/mwikG4wR9nFne/DHga1V2YdGh1zT1vrVWlESk0zciumYaE/F8GP
	 oEEQ8enreRt/hGfSpo1rMWgEuP9tkiNpyk1Yc8peq/UGKBRNB37K1tWE/GRrKNRKrg
	 O1EZHdmuQOqKTD6/pL90/CC+RH2tMqxHzUJpNtpzJF8AU46UdHFeQs30yDs5OMwTZi
	 eO3l+BsoRUDhKEUnzLL4uB//ICRCfh8QMjSQ7GF+ajTia0x/cwnDA0JeAhUs6zhcT4
	 2pWNWyz9Qw/+g==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4G10DK588vz6tmP;
	Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:13:21 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] UefiPayloadPkg: Add PayloadLoaderPeim which can load ELF payload
To: "Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>, "devel@edk2.groups.io"
 <devel@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: "Ma, Maurice" <maurice.ma@intel.com>, "Dong, Guo" <guo.dong@intel.com>,
 "You, Benjamin" <benjamin.you@intel.com>
References: <20210603062259.1390-1-ray.ni@intel.com>
 <20210603062259.1390-3-ray.ni@intel.com>
 <812b8f13-e951-5d27-9bd1-61711e6dd840@posteo.de>
 <CO1PR11MB4930C7F698C1BEA68E298AE68C379@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <486c5ab8-240e-3ac5-5a4a-7f368cb68644@posteo.de>
 <CO1PR11MB4930473BF50D013EDA2AB0AF8C369@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <8eb8db11-90c2-57e0-6868-3532c5af8073@posteo.de>
 <CO1PR11MB49307462C346035757486B638C359@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <785b1d37-9314-4909-7d1f-efa343018238@posteo.de>
 <CO1PR11MB4930EEAF56E68F0DA85C00CA8C359@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFydmluIEjDpHVzZXI=?= <mhaeuser@posteo.de>
Message-ID: <af00b81b-b41b-7f72-dad1-61860120ca29@posteo.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:13:21 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR11MB4930EEAF56E68F0DA85C00CA8C359@CO1PR11MB4930.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB

On 10.06.21 11:39, Ni, Ray wrote:
>> Maybe for some context, my main issue at first was that the checks are
>> all proper runtime checks with no ASSERTs at all, so I got confused how
>> this situation could happen in a realistic scenario. I needed to trace
>> the ParseStatus data flow to understand the idea is basically the same
>> as in the PE library. Code in a way is self-documenting, and this
>> personally gave me a hard time understanding why it is written this way.
>> But thanks for clarifying your intention! :)
> I assume you are ok with the ParseStatus.
> I will send new version based on mail discussion. Thanks!

I don't need to be okay with anything, I'm not a maintainer nor an 
authority. But I gave my opinion, which is that it is dead code that 
makes the design/flow harder to understand for a third party, at no 
obvious benefit.

Thank you for preparing fixes.

Best regards,
Marvin

>