From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UEFI Plugfest 2013 -- New Orleans
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:00:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130819160018.GA22532@srcf.ucam.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1376925765.2069.24.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:22:45AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 13:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:25:35AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > > Every deviation from the spec (or common sense), however minor, should
> > > show up as a clear failure. Even the ones we *have* been able to work
> > > around, because we still want them *fixed*.
> >
> > Why? It's not like we can ever stop carrying that code.
>
> The reason for doing it is that we have a buildable reference
> implementation that's fully spec compliant we can then make the basis of
> a test suite for UEFI.
And why's that a benefit? Nobody's ever going to be able to ship an OS
that doesn't implement these workarounds - they're de-facto part of the
spec. It'd make more sense to document them officially.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-19 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-16 15:20 UEFI Plugfest 2013 -- New Orleans John W. Linville
2013-08-17 0:44 ` James Bottomley
2013-08-19 8:25 ` David Woodhouse
2013-08-19 12:55 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-19 15:22 ` James Bottomley
2013-08-19 16:00 ` Matthew Garrett [this message]
2013-08-19 17:02 ` James Bottomley
2013-08-19 17:21 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-19 17:38 ` James Bottomley
2013-08-19 17:47 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-19 20:09 ` David Woodhouse
2013-08-19 20:19 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-19 20:21 ` David Woodhouse
2013-08-19 20:39 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-19 21:06 ` David Woodhouse
2013-08-19 21:30 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-09-02 6:23 ` Matt Fleming
2013-08-19 15:17 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130819160018.GA22532@srcf.ucam.org \
--to=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).