[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130819174743.GA25193@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:47:43 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 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@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists