Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...> writes: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:21:11PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 21:19 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > > We have no way to guarantee that. Most board vendors don't turn up to > > > the plugfests and aren't going to run anything we ship. > > > > Oh well, let's just wring our hands and not bother to turn up to the > > plugfest at all then. No point trying to *improve* the situation, after > > all. > > The plugfests have, from our perspective, always been useful in > identifying new implementation interpretations before hardware ships. > But even then, it's usually too late to modify the firmware. Vendors who > care about Linux compatibility have already tested Linux before we turn > up. > Even if most vendors never bother testing at all, and even if a good number of those that do use only the SCT and it hopefully gets extended to check more things, for the ones who do care I feel having a 'disable all workarounds' option would be useful. Having multiple *independent* implementations, all verifying for both interoperability (workarounds enabled) and correctness (workarounds disabled) is *exactly* what plugfests are intended to do. Coming to a plugfest and saying "Well, *my* code runs fine, but I'm not going to tell you whether you're 'doing it right' or just 'doing it wrong in a way we already know about'" is rather rude. -- 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
