On 05/21/21 22:43, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: > Reviewed-by: Bret Barkelew > bret.barke...@microsoft.com<mailto:bret.barke...@microsoft.com> >
Thanks! > I don’t regret making it ERROR at first because now no one can claim to have > not been warned when the interface drops, I agree that this argument works -- on the other hand, we shouldn't forget that edk2's own BdsDxe and UefiBootManagerLib (and apparently some other modules) still consume the Variable Lock Protocol. (That's how I encountered these messages myself.) IOW we can't expect downstreams to stop consuming the Variable Lock Protocol before edk2 itself does. > but I agree that lowering to WARN now is prudent. Thanks again! Laszlo > > - Bret > > From: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:ler...@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 1:40 PM > To: edk2-devel-groups-io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> > Cc: Bret Barkelew<mailto:bret.barke...@microsoft.com>; Hao A > Wu<mailto:hao.a...@intel.com>; Jian J Wang<mailto:jian.j.w...@intel.com>; > Liming Gao<mailto:gaolim...@byosoft.com.cn>; Kinney, Michael > D<mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Philippe > Mathieu-Daudé<mailto:phi...@redhat.com> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-stable202105 PATCH] MdeModulePkg/VariableLock: > downgrade compatibility warnings to DEBUG_WARN > > Commit a18a9bde36d2 ("MdeModulePkg/Variable/RuntimeDxe: Restore Variable > Lock Protocol behavior", 2020-12-15), for bug 3111, added two such sets of > debug messages that: > > (a) are relevant for developers, > > (b) yet should not necessarily poke end-users, because no functionality > suffers in practice. > > Both message sets are in function VariableLockRequestToLock(): the first > is a generic interface deprecation warning; the second is the > double-locking situation, which we permit for compatibility (return status > EFI_SUCCESS). > > Both message sets should be emitted with the DEBUG_WARN mask, not the most > serious DEBUG_ERROR mask. On some platforms, the serial console carries > both terminal traffic, and grave (DEBUG_ERROR-only) log messages. On such > platforms, both message sets may be perceived as a nuisance by end-users, > as there is nothing they can do, and there's nothing they *should* do -- > in practice, nothing malfunctions. > > (Such a platform is ArmVirtQemu, built with "-D > DEBUG_PRINT_ERROR_LEVEL=0x80000000".) > > Cc: Bret Barkelew <bret.barke...@microsoft.com> > Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a...@intel.com> > Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.w...@intel.com> > Cc: Liming Gao <gaolim...@byosoft.com.cn> > Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> > Cc: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > Ref: > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.tianocore.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D3410&data=04%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Ca7ff677adbc34cf62f0608d91c98b5b9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637572264482965812%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2WuJ06k2ViIR6JnQVRmsGdsnYjmOrPUtGD82thYLe%2FU%3D&reserved=0 > Fixes: a18a9bde36d2ffc12df29cdced1efa1f8f9f2021 > Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > --- > MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c | 10 > +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git > a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c > b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c > index 7d87e50efdcd..4e1efef9a7e4 100644 > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c > @@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ VariableLockRequestToLock ( > EFI_STATUS Status; > VARIABLE_POLICY_ENTRY *NewPolicy; > > - DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! %a() will go away > soon!\n", __FUNCTION__)); > - DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! Please move to use > Variable Policy!\n")); > - DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! Variable: %g %s\n", > VendorGuid, VariableName)); > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! %a() will go away > soon!\n", __FUNCTION__)); > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! Please move to use > Variable Policy!\n")); > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! Variable: %g %s\n", > VendorGuid, VariableName)); > > NewPolicy = NULL; > Status = CreateBasicVariablePolicy( > @@ -69,13 +69,13 @@ VariableLockRequestToLock ( > // > // If the error returned is EFI_ALREADY_STARTED, we need to check the > // current database for the variable and see whether it's locked. If it's > - // locked, we're still fine, but also generate a DEBUG_ERROR message so > the > + // locked, we're still fine, but also generate a DEBUG_WARN message so > the > // duplicate lock can be removed. > // > if (Status == EFI_ALREADY_STARTED) { > Status = ValidateSetVariable (VariableName, VendorGuid, 0, 0, NULL); > if (Status == EFI_WRITE_PROTECTED) { > - DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, " Variable: %g %s is already locked!\n", > VendorGuid, VariableName)); > + DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, " Variable: %g %s is already locked!\n", > VendorGuid, VariableName)); > Status = EFI_SUCCESS; > } else { > DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, " Variable: %g %s can not be locked!\n", > VendorGuid, VariableName)); > -- > 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201 > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#75458): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/75458 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82995928/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-