Some general development questions

[Alex Hung]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Colin Ian King
<colin.king at canonical.com> wrote:
> On 26/07/16 13:50, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> 1.  It seems like the correct procedure on this list to review a patch is to
>>
>> a) add ACK: to the subject, and
>> b) Add an Acked-by: line to the end of the patch.
>>
>> Is one notification or the other also acceptable?
>
> The convention is a + b, sometimes we forget one or the other, but
> generally we try and do a + b.

I usually prefer b) if only one of them is done because the ack is
added by patchwork automatically.

>
> We normally require 2 Acks before code is pulled into the git
> repository.  If you see code that needs commenting on, feel free to
> contribute comments etc.
>
> (Sometimes, when we are very close to release and a trivial patch lands
> in the list to fix packaging issues or build issues we may then fall
> back to 1 Ack to get things turned around quickly).
>
>>
>> 2.  Is the intent of fwts to test for *specific* known failure cases, or should
>> an overall general approach to verification be taken?  For example, I've seen a
>> failure in _DSM methods on specific vendor's hardware.  Should I target a test
>> for that failure, or make the test as broad as possible?
>
> My opinion is that fwts checks against the specifications, and, if we
> know of any special specific issues we can add tests for these too if
> they don't go against the specs,
>
>>
>> [This is a loaded question -- in some cases there is a lot of information in the
>> tables and it may be better to take a step approach to enhancing the test suite.]
>>
>> 3.  debian/ exists.  Is it okay to add a fedora directory that contains a
>> buildrpm.sh script & fwts.spec file?
>
> Yep, that's OK if it does not keep on changing too frequently (c.f.
> debian changelogs etc) and if you are happy to maintain it.

Acked for this

>
>>
>> 4.  [This one is more of a personal statement and question :)]  I suck at
>> Makefiles.  I *really* *really* *really* suck at them.
>
> No problem, we can try and help if you get stuck and need some
> incantations to get things sorted for you.
>
>>
>> I have noticed the following issue that I think should be addressed in the
>> Makefile.  When executing 'fwts --uefitests' the efi_runtime module is not
>> automatically loaded into the kernel.  I think that would be a trivial exercise
>> for someone more familiar with the Makefile layout than I am ;) -- who is the
>> right person to ping for that request?
>
> So a few things to bear in mind.
>
> 1. the efi_runtime module is packaged up in Ubuntu as a DKMS module.
> This has special packaging rules to make the dkms package. DKMS is a pain.
>
> 2. it is our intention to get this into the upstream kernel to do away
> with this complexity. Hopefully, if things go well, this will be in the
> 4.8 kernel time frame.
>
>>
>> 4a)  Is there any reason that efi_runtime only exists in fwts and not the kernel
>> (linux.git) tree?
>
> See above :-)
>>
>> P.
>>
> Colin
>
> --
> fwts-devel mailing list
> fwts-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/fwts-devel



-- 
Cheers,
Alex Hung