On 11 March 2018 at 11:48, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/11/18 09:15, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Hi Laszlo, >> >> On 11 March 2018 at 01:48, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Repo: https://github.com/lersek/edk2.git >>> Branch: hdr_inf_cleanup >>> >>> In >>> <http://mid.mail-archive.com/E92EE9817A31E24EB0585FDF735412F56327F7D3@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>, >>> Mike explained why it's a good idea to list module-internal *.h files in >>> the [Sources*] sections of the INF files: >>> >>> On 11/23/15 21:28, Kinney, Michael D wrote: >>>> There are 2 reasons to list all source files used in a module build in >>>> the [Sources] section. >>>> >>>> 1) Support incremental builds. If a change to the .h file is made, >>>> then the module may not be rebuilt if the .h file is not listed in >>>> [Sources] >>>> 2) Support of UEFI Distribution Package distribution format. The UPT >>>> tools that creates UDP packages uses the [Sources] section for the >>>> inventory of files. If a file is missing, then it will not be >>>> included in the UDP file. >>> >>> In only two years and three-four months, I've finally come around >>> addressing (1) under ArmVirtPkg and OvmfPkg. >> >> Thanks for doing this. >> >> However, while I highly appreciate your thoroughness and verbosity in >> most cases, I do think you've crossed a line this time :-) >> >> Do we *really* need 4 different patches for CsmSupportLib, each adding >> a single .h file to [Sources], with an elaborate description how it is >> being used? If it is used, it needs to be listed, and if it is not, it >> needs to be removed, that's all there is to it IMO. > > The structuring of the patch series reflects my thinking process and the > work I did precisely. I didn't (couldn't) investigate multiple header > files at once / in parallel; I investigated them one by one. It's easy > to squash patches, and it's hard to split them, so I maintain that > writing up and posting these patches one by one, in v1, was the right > thing to do. Personally I find it much easier to read many trivial > patches than half as many complex / divergent ones. If you prefer that I > squash patches into one per module, I can do that (I'd wait for more > feedback first though). > > Second, I disagree that it's as simple as "list it if it's used". I > didn't just want to dump the .h filenames into the INF files; I wanted > to see each time whether the use of the header file was justified in the > first place -- this is not a given if there are multiple INF files in > the same directory, or an INF file has architecture-specific Sources > sections. > > For example, in patch 06/45, I removed "QemuLoader.h" from "Qemu.c", and > "Qemu.c" is only built into one of the INF files under > "OvmfPkg/AcpiPlatformDxe". (Ultimately I had to list "QemuLoader.h" in > both INF files, in patch 07/45, due to "QemuFwCfgAcpi.c", which is built > into both INFs.) > > For another example, in patch 37/45, I added "VbeShim.h" to > [Sources.Ia32, Sources.X64], and not to another of the [Sources*] > sections. The same applies to patch 17/45, where "X64/VirtualMemory.h" > belongs under [Sources.X64] only. > > I find this is not as easy as it looks, and I meant to be thorough. If > you don't have time to wade through the patches, I'll thank you if you > ACK just the first three (ArmVirtPkg) patches. >
Please understand that this is not criticism on your thinking process, and I highly value the quality of your work in general, and for this series in particular. I am merely saying that it is not always necessary to share your personal journey resulting in the patches at this level of detail, simply because it doesn't scale. In any case, I am happy with this to go in as is, if you prefer. Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
