On 5/7/21 10:10 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >> Sounds good. What's your thought if I take out patch 1 - 9 from this RFC >> series and submit them as non-RFC for the further review and acceptance >> ? The patch# 1-9 are basically prepatch before we get into SNP specific >> bits. > More precisely, that means patches 1-8 (because patch#9 should be > replaced by the module-scope override, and also moved to just before > what is currently patch#21). > > Other than that, I agree, this is a good idea. I've anyway thought that > the MdePkg stuff (5 patches) could be / should be merged up-front in > separation, and then the subsequent 3 patches for OvmfPkg are basically > refactoring. We can record the resultant commit range (8 commits) in > TianoCore#3275, and keep the BZ open for the rest of the work. So go > ahead please.
Yes, I will keep patch#9 in SNP series. FYI, I will add couple of more patches in MdePkg to define the macros for AP creation and RMPAJUST instruction. Now that GHCB spec is final, we are working to get the AP creation implemented for the next version. -Brijesh -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#74819): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/74819 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82479056/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
