On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:22:45AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 13:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:25:35AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > Every deviation from the spec (or common sense), however minor, should > > > show up as a clear failure. Even the ones we *have* been able to work > > > around, because we still want them *fixed*. > > > > Why? It's not like we can ever stop carrying that code. > > The reason for doing it is that we have a buildable reference > implementation that's fully spec compliant we can then make the basis of > a test suite for UEFI.
And why's that a benefit? Nobody's ever going to be able to ship an OS that doesn't implement these workarounds - they're de-facto part of the spec. It'd make more sense to document them officially. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
