[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] RFC: ovmf: Add support for TPM Physi

From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] RFC: ovmf: Add support for TPM Physical Presence interface
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:29:24 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0

Hi Marc-André,

On 05/15/18 14:30, address@hidden wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>
> Hi,
> The following series adds basic TPM PPI 1.3 support for OVMF-on-QEMU
> with TPM2 (I haven't tested TPM1, for lack of interest).

I got the review of this patch series added to my TODO list, but I'll
have to ask for your patience. :(

>From an extremely superficial skim:

* please use the

    TopDirPkg/ModuleName: blah blah blah

  subject format, or more generally, if a module cannot be identified,

    TopDirPkg: blah blah blah

* the subject line and the commit message shouldn't be wider than 74

* edk2 uses two spaces for general indentation, and I'm noticing some
  inconsistency there (4 spaces like in QEMU).

* Please consider formatting the patches with "--find-copies-harder"
  (although I can look at them with the same option after fetching the
  series from your repo). This option is usually helpful for reviewers
  when cloning and modifying modules cross-package.

* Please consider adopting the git settings at
  in particular:

  - "--stat=1000 --stat-graph-width=20", so that pathnames are not
    truncated in the diffstats,

  - the "xfuncname"-related settings, so that git diff hunk headers @@
    are useful for DSC and INF files too,

  - the diff order file, so that files are listed in patches in logical
    order, going from abstract / descriptive (.inf, .h) to concrete /
    imperative (.c).

Not much of a review, I know; this is all I can offer right now. If you
have the time to respin just with these superficial changes, that might
make my life easier. If you prefer to delay them, that's 100% fine too.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]