On 03/11/18 09:15, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Hi Laszlo, > > On 11 March 2018 at 01:48, Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> 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. > Apart from that, the series looks correct to me. Thanks! Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
