On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 22:35 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > > I think your note on patch#2 is valuable too and should be captured in
> > > the commit message body. Please consider formulating it with a bit more
> > > neutral tone :)
> > 
> > I would prefer to express that particular concern in 'diff -up' form
> > when actually fixing it :)
> > 
> 
> I'm a big fan of detailed commit messages. It's OK (and welcome) to
> describe current shortcomings even if you intend to fix them later.

It isn't strictly a shortcoming of that patch itself, it's more of a
pre-existing shortcoming which is next on my list.

But keen-eyed reviewers or testers might potentially have said "It's
all very well exposing all these new drives but they're all just called
Harddisk". Mentioning it in the note was partly an attempt to avoid
that, but mostly an attempt to solicit discussion on how to *fix* it.

Since it appears to have completely failed to achieve the latter, I'll
try again :)

As noted, UefiBootManagerLib already has this BmGetBootDescription()
function, which is internal. Can I just rename it to
EfiBootManagerGetBootDescription() and export it without having to
change any specifications first?


Adding a generic way for block devices to report a human-readable
description in order to kill off all the device-type-specific functions
in BmBootDescription.c presumably *would* involve actually coordinating
with UEFI Specifications first?

But we could consider that a second step. If I make the LegacyBm code
just call the existing (but renamed) EfiBootManagerGetBootDescription()
then all the horrid special cases and the specification work that's
required to fix them are purely an implementation detail in
EfiBootManagerLib?