On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 18:21 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:02:55AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > The object of having a test suite conform to the spec is not to
> > perpetuate the cockups that occurred in round one of the implementation
> > and to force everyone to pay closer attention to what the spec says.
> > Otherwise the amount of workarounds is just going to grow without
> > bounds.
>
> There's a benefit in having a test suite that prevents new errors from
> being introduced, but there's no benefit in failing on errors that we
> have to work around anyway. We have the code. We're never going to be
> able to remove the code.
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.
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.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
