Date
1 - 1 of 1
[edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum specifications
Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
Leif,
I received additional feedback on this proposal.
We should add the UEFI Shell Specification to this new process. This includes adding a bugzilla.tianocore.org product category and a new Github repository for the "UEFI Shell Specification".
Thanks,
--Samer
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I received additional feedback on this proposal.
We should add the UEFI Shell Specification to this new process. This includes adding a bugzilla.tianocore.org product category and a new Github repository for the "UEFI Shell Specification".
Thanks,
--Samer
-----Original Message-----IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Samer El-
Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:19 AM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-
Mahmoud@...>; ray.ni@...; leif@...;
devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Felixp@...; Doran, Mark <mark.doran@...>; Andrew Fish
<afish@...>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kinney@...>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-
Mahmoud@...>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum
specifications
Are there any additional comments on the code first process for UEFI
specifications?
When should we expect the process to *actually* start being used?
Thanks,
--Samer-----Original Message-----|
From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Samer
El-Haj- Mahmoud via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 5:11 PM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; ray.ni@...; leif@...;
devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Felixp@...; Doran, Mark <mark.doran@...>; Andrew Fish
<afish@...>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kinney@...>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-
Mahmoud@...>
Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum
specifications
Leif, Ray,
I have not seen any discussion on this thread since March(!)...
Please see my comments below.-----Original Message-----BZ####?
From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ni, Ray
via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 1:15 AM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; leif@...; devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Felixp@...; Doran, Mark <mark.doran@...>; Andrew Fish
<afish@...>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...>; Kinney, Michael
D <michael.d.kinney@...>
Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum
specificationscode.
## Github
New repositories will be added for holding the text changes and
the sourceWhat's the case when multiple .MD files are needed?
Specification text changes will be held within the affected source
repository, in the Github flavour of markdown, in a file (or split
across several files) with .md suffix.(This one may break down where we have a specification change
affecting multiple specifications, but at that point we can track
it with multiple BZ entries)relevant BZ####.
## Source code
In order to ensure draft code does not accidentally leak into
production use, and to signify when the changeover from draft to
final happens, *all* new or modified[1] identifiers need to be
prefixed with thestatically
[1] Modified in a non-backwards-compatible way. If, for example, asized array is grown - this does not need to be prefixed. ButIf a protocol is enhanced to provide more interfaces with increased
a tag in a comment would be *highly* recommended.
revision number, would you like the protocol name to be prefixed
withOr just the new interfaces added to the protocol are prefixed the BZ####?I think pre-fixing the new interfaces is sufficient. Otherwise, you
I think just prefixing the new interfaces can meet the purpose.
need to modify all code using the existing interfaces (for build
verification)But the protocol definition is changed, it also needs to be prefixedA changed protocol definition is not backwards compatible, and
according to this flow.
Can you clarify a bit more?
typically results in a new protocol GUID. In that case, it really
becomes a new definition and need to be pre-fixed per this rule. Right?
### File names
New public header files need the prefix. I.e.
`Bz1234MyNewProtocol.h` Private header files do not need the prefix.
### Contents
The tagging must follow the coding style used by each affected codebase.
Examples:
| Released in spec | Draft version in tree | Comment |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `FunctionName` | `Bz1234FunctionName` | |
| `HEADER_MACRO` | `BZ1234_HEADER_MACRO` |IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments arethe
If FunctionName or HEADER_MACRO is defined in non-public header
files, I don't think they require the prefix. Do you agree?For data structures or enums, any new or non-backwards-compatible[2] |
structs or fields require a prefix. As above, growing an existing
array in an existing struct requires no prefix.
| `typedef SOME_STRUCT` | `BZ1234_SOME_STRUCT` | Typedef only| `StructField` | `Bz1234StructField` | In existing struct[3] |[2] |
| `typedef SOME_ENUM` | `BZ1234_SOME_ENUM` | Typedef onlypublic
[2] If the struct or enum definition is separate from the typedef
in theheader, the definition does not need the prefix.What does "separate" mean?
Does it mean "struct or enum in the public header BzXXX.h don't need
the prefix"?
If yes, then I think macros defined in BzXXX.h also don't need the prefix.[3] Individual fields in newly added typedefd struct do not need
prefix,prefix.struct already carried the prefix.
Variable prefixes indicating global scope ('g' or 'm') go before
the BZThe way I read it, *all* new (and non-backward modified) identifiersI think only the names (struct type name, enum type name, interface
| `gSomeGuid` | `gBz1234SomeGuid` | |
Local identifiers, including module-global ones (m-prefixed) do
not require a BZ prefix.
name, protocol/ppi name) defined in public header files need the BZ
prefix when the public header doesn't have prefix.
Right?
(typedef struct, typedef enum, and new structfield in existing struct)
need to be pre-fixed, regardless if the filename is prefixed or not.
Correct?IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose
the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or
copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any
medium. Thank you.