On 2018-03-11 04:54:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > 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.
True. Originally I was going to suggest that it might be worth making 1 patch per package, but after looking over the changes, it seems that scope is maybe a bit to large for that. > In any case, I am happy with this to go in as is, if you prefer. Also after looking it over, it appears that Laszlo put quite a bit of information into each commit message. I agree that it might be sliced a little too finely, but I guess after seeing the effort he put into it, I prefer Laszlo go ahead and keep the separate commits. Series Reviewed-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
