Re: [PATCH v11 0/1] ShellPkg/DynamicCommand: add HttpDynamicCommand

["Vladimir Olovyannikov" <vladimir.olovyannikov@broadcom.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 12:20 AM
> To: Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@broadcom.com>;
> devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Zhichao Gao <zhichao.gao@intel.com>; Maciej Rabeda
> <maciej.rabeda@linux.intel.com>; Jiaxin Wu <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>; Siyuan
> Fu <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>; Liming Gao
> <liming.gao@intel.com>; Nd <nd@arm.com>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
> <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/1] ShellPkg/DynamicCommand: add
> HttpDynamicCommand
>
> On 09/10/20 22:33, Vladimir Olovyannikov wrote:
> > Hi Laszlo,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 11:33 PM
>
> >>> PATCH v11 changes:
> >>> Address comments from Laszlo:
> >>>   - use TimeBaseLib.h header to get rid of duplicated constants;
> >>>   - explicitly return UINT32 in EfiTimeToEpoch().
> >>
> >> to be clear, I explicitly *disagree* with returning UINT32 from
> >> EfiTimeToEpoch().
> >>
> >> I'm not "demanding" (or even suggesting) that you update the
> >> EfiTimeToEpoch() implementation in this patch to return UINTN, but
> >> I'd like to be very clear that, IMO, for EfiTimeToEpoch() to suffer
> >> from a year 2106 problem on 64-bit systems too, is bad design. So
> >> please don't list the UINT32 return type as my suggestion -- that's
> >> the exact opposite of what I'd actually suggest.
>
> > Sorry, I must have misunderstood. Do you want me to resubmit the
> > patch? I am open to ideas.
>
> Ideally:
>
> - change the return type of EfiTimeToEpoch() to UNITN
>
> - drop the final UINT32 cast from EfiTimeToEpoch()
>
> - change the type of ElapsedSeconds to UINTN
>
> - change the expression
>
>     ElapsedSeconds > 1 ? ElapsedSeconds : 1
>
>   to
>
>     ElapsedSeconds > 1 ? (UINT64)ElapsedSeconds : 1
>
> - print the expression mentioned above with the format specifier %Lu
I see. Basically, it is PATCH v10. I just wanted to reuse TimeBaseLib.h
constants in PATCH v11.

>
> *BUT*. These are really just small details. It would be OK to fix these up
> later,
> incrementally. Where I see a real problem is the lack of timely feedback
> from
> the ShellPkg maintainers.
Agreed. Hopefully, it can be reviewed sometime soon.

Thank you,
Vladimir
>
> Laszlo