Hi Laszlo and Ruiyu I can think 1 possible alternative, for your consideration only.
1) Move the feature to OvmfPkg. As such, it won't block us at this moment. Once the UDF solution has good quality, we can move it back to MdeModulePkg. Thank you Yao Jiewen From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 12:51 AM To: Ni, Ruiyu <[email protected]>; Paulo Alcantara <[email protected]> Cc: Yao, Jiewen <[email protected]>; Wu, Hao A <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Zeng, Star <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [edk2] Functionality issues in UDF support On 09/15/17 18:40, Ni, Ruiyu wrote: > Laszlo, > Please do not add a PCD for this. Too many PCDs are no good to the project. I understand that new MdeModulePkg PCDs are not liked, but what do you propose instead? If we simply revert the PartitionDxe changes, then people that want to experiment with general UDF support under OVMF won't be able to do that at all. I'm in the process of adding -D UDF_ENABLE to OvmfPkg, ArmVirtPkg, and Nt32Pkg, which would control both the FeaturePCD and the inclusion of UdfDxe in the build. If you disagree with the FeaturePCD, I can stop working on this, but I don't know what the alternative is. "Fix it immediately" is not an alternative; we can't do that. If you want to revert the change, it's your prerogative, but that will prevent everybody from testing gradual UDF improvements. (No 3rd parties build OVMF from any staging branches, so if the feature is only available on a staging branch, it might as well not exist, for the outside world.) Thanks Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
