On 09/11/20 17:23, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> I don't see why we should have this as a hard coded
> limit that is not runtime configurable.
>
> IOW, why can't we keep our current default and provide a machine type
> property "firmware_max_size" which users can opt-in to setting if
> their particular firmware exceeds normal defaults. That won't impact
> us for migration compat in any way, and lets users have flexibility t
> do what they want.
Technically, this is fine, in my opinion.
My concerns (in distilled form, this time):
- The change increases maintenance burden.
- The change does not benefit most users of QEMU, as the intended guest
payload will not available to most of them at all (regardless of
licensing terms).
- The existence of the property may entice OVMF users to ask us to
enlarge the *current* OVMF firmware platform and to pack more stuff in
it. That is not OK. My counter-proposal ("please contribute a new
platform DSC/FDF under OvmfPkg, and assume co-reviewership for it")
would almost certainly not be acted upon.
That's all.
Thanks
Laszlo
