lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: UEFI Plugfest 2013 -- New Orleans
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:38:46AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

> It's not about us removing the code, it's about us having an accurate
> compliance test. There are two reasons for having a fully correct
> compliance test
>
> 1. Our work arounds have unintended consequences which have knock
> on effects which mean that you don't know if a test failure is
> real or an unintended consequence of a work around.

It doesn't matter. If a platform is supposed to run Linux 3.6 then it
has to run Linux 3.6 regardless of whether or not the failure is due to
a firmware bug or a bug in the kernel. The platform vendor will be
obliged to fix it in the firmware no matter what the test suite says.

> 2. New features in specs tend to build on previous features, so
> we're going to have a hard time constructing accurate tests for
> layered features where we've done a work around for the base
> feature.

Which is easily rectified if the specification is modified to describe
reality instead.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-19 20:21    [W:0.094 / U:1.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site