On 1/18/2024 9:49 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
but I'd prefer to just remove this
optimization from standalone MM, given that not only a) it shouldn't
have to deal with a large number of protocol GUIDs, but also b) the
driver dispatch is much more straight-forward. (Typically, StMM
drivers can be dispatched in the order they appear in the firmware
volume, in which case each DEPEX is evaluated only once anyway)
Sounds like a promising basis for removing the optimization indeed!
Your patch suggested earlier works for me. And I don't see significant
performance reduction compared with keeping optimization.
I don't have strong reason on removing the optimization, but I think it
would be simply good for now. Could you post your patch to edk2-devel
for review and merge?
That wouldn't be correct; I don't have any platform for testing StMM. I
proposed the patch purely based on code analysis. I prefer not to post
untested patches, if I can avoid it.
I got it, thanks!
I thought I could give Tested-by tag when you post the patch since I
already verified the patch on a StMM platform
You can however post my patch; simply add your S-o-b at the bottom. You
can also preserve my authorship on the patch with --author=... on
git-commit; but even that is unnecessary for such a simple patch (you
don't even have to pick the patch up from the email, it's trivial to
reimplement from scratch, just reading the email).
I'm going to send the patch to edk2-devel and keep your authorship on
the patch because there is no change compared with your suggestion in
the email.
Thanks,
Nhi
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#114024): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/114024
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103594587/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
