AP cannot run any UEFI Service. Please make sure AP code use base-typed
DebugLib instance (Such as BaseDebugLibSerialport.inf from MdePkg)
fanjianf...@byosoft.com.cn
发件人： Yoshinoya
发送时间： 2024-05-31 14:22
收件人： devel@edk2.groups.io
主题： [edk2-devel] Is DEBUG output function safe for MP case?
He
Hello
I ask for help for debug output in multi-core case.
Is the current DEBUG marco safe for AP Cores to output message?
If the output message is too long, it takes too much time, will it cause some
abnormal exception?
Thanks
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages
I do not see the commits now but given dependabot commits are the latest
in the master branch, I'd assume a branch was not rebased correctly.
Thanks,
Michael
On 5/30/2024 11:50 PM, Michael D Kinney wrote:
Hi Michael,
Do you know why there would be dependabot commits in PRs not related to
dep
Liming - It is still under discussion. I’m checking if this patch can be
reviewed and merged first. You may find more details in the attached email.
BRs,
Lin, Du
From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of gaoliming via
groups.io
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 1:02 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Lin,
Hi Michael,
Do you know why there would be dependabot commits in PRs not related to
dependabot updates?
For example:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5708/commits
Thanks,
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: Kinney, Michael D
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 11:01 AM
> To: Ka
Is there any feedback from CXL stakeholders?
It is OK if more time is needed to check with CXL stakeholders. But looks like
we all agree that the GCD attribute conversion table shall be updated to
convert EFI_RESOURCE_ATTRIBUTE_SPECIAL_PURPOSE to EFI_MEMORY_SP.
So could we review and merge the c
Yes.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: Kasbekar, Saloni
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 10:39 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; mikub...@linux.microsoft.com; Kinney, Michael D
> ; Rebecca Cran ;
> kra...@redhat.com; Kubacki, Michael
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] GitHub PR Code Review process
How are we planning to handle packages (like NetworkPkg) without a maintainer?
Would the stewards add in the reviewers in that case?
-Original Message-
From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Michael Kubacki
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 5:51 PM
To: Kinney, Michael D ; devel@edk2.groups.
On 2024-05-30 12:58, Rebecca Cran wrote:
On 5/30/2024 4:06 AM, Leif Lindholm via groups.io wrote:
While reviewing https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5702, I found
myself wondering "shouldn't this (doesn't apply to UEFI-based systems)
be the case for the size field also?".
But the SMBIOS s
On 5/6/24 15:27, Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum wrote:
A malicious host may be able to undermine the fw_cfg
interface such that loading a blob fails.
In this case rather than continuing to the next boot
option, the blob verifier should halt.
For non-confidential guests, the error should be non-fatal.
On 5/6/24 15:27, Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum wrote:
The Blob Verifier checks boot artifacts against a hash table
injected by the hypervisor and measured by hardware.
Update the Blob Verifier to enter a dead loop if the artifacts
do not match.
There are some changes to messages from ERROR to WARN an
All Maintainer.txt rules are matches and all maintainers/reviewers are combined
CODEOWNERS only matches the last rule.
I do not think your suggestion works.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: kra...@redhat.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 1:33 AM
> To: Kinney, Michael D
> Cc: Michae
On Thu, 30 May 2024 at 05:10, Chao Li wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> Gerd has reviewed and tested this patch set, so can you give me the R-B or
> should I create the PR on github?
>
Please create the PR - thanks
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View
merged
> -Original Message-
> From: Lin, Du
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 8:07 PM
> To: Yao, Jiewen ; devel@edk2.groups.io; gaoliming
>
> Cc: 'Ard Biesheuvel' ; 'Gerd Hoffmann'
> ; Lin, Du
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] OvmfPkg: Update VMM Hob list check to
> support new resource
Hi Jiewen,
Thanks for your patience. I rebased this PR again since CI failed after "merge
branch". And it is ready to go now.
Per my limited understanding, it should be OK to add the "push" label to merge
a PR to upstream even the PR shows "This branch is out-of-date with the base
branch" as l
On 5/30/2024 4:06 AM, Leif Lindholm via groups.io wrote:
While reviewing https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5702, I found
myself wondering "shouldn't this (doesn't apply to UEFI-based systems)
be the case for the size field also?".
But the SMBIOS spec is quite clear that the size field ref
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 10:49:25AM GMT, Michael Brown wrote:
> On 30/05/2024 11:33, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Most likely it is exactly this ...
> >
> > > As of commit
> > > https://github.com/ipxe/ipxe/commit/6769a7c3c, we now deliberately leak
> > > resources once ExitBootServices has been trigge
On 30/05/2024 11:33, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Most likely it is exactly this ...
As of commit
https://github.com/ipxe/ipxe/commit/6769a7c3c, we now deliberately leak
resources once ExitBootServices has been triggered by skipping the cleanup
calls to UninstallMultipleProtocolInterfaces etc.
... as
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 10:08:26AM GMT, Michael Brown wrote:
> iPXE shouldn't be triggering any protocol installations in response to
> ExitBootServices.
>
> We used to make a good-faith effort to clean up gracefully by uninstalling
> protocols. This ended up exposing so many bugs in EDK2 and thi
It is out of date again.
When I click rebase, I notice git uses "merge branch". It seems not what we
want.
I am not sure how to handle it.
Next time, please tell me ASAP once you submit a new PR.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lin, Du
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 6:26 PM
> To: Yao, J
Thanks Jiewen. A new PR has been submitted for this:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5699.
BRs,
Lin, Du
-Original Message-
From: Yao, Jiewen
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 8:00 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Yao, Jiewen ; gaoliming
; Lin, Du
Cc: 'Ard Biesheuvel' ; 'Gerd Hoffmann'
On 30/05/2024 10:31, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 01:07:45PM GMT, gaoliming via groups.io wrote:
If ASSERT trigs the exception, could call stack show each caller?
Turned out to be ipxe, apparently it has a exit-boot-services handler
which triggers all this.
iPXE shouldn't be
Hi Rebecca,
While reviewing https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5702, I found
myself wondering "shouldn't this (doesn't apply to UEFI-based systems)
be the case for the size field also?".
But the SMBIOS spec is quite clear that the size field refers to the
size of the physical device the
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 01:07:45PM GMT, gaoliming via groups.io wrote:
> If ASSERT trigs the exception, could call stack show each caller?
Turned out to be ipxe, apparently it has a exit-boot-services handler
which triggers all this.
take care,
Gerd
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: Y
Hi,
> > - SetMem (&MtrrSettings.Fixed, sizeof MtrrSettings.Fixed, 0x06);
> > + SetMem (&MtrrSettings.Fixed, sizeof MtrrSettings.Fixed,
> > MTRR_CACHE_WRITE_BACK);
> > ZeroMem (&MtrrSettings.Variables, sizeof
> > MtrrSettings.Variables);
> > - MtrrSettings.MtrrDefType |= BIT11 | BIT
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 08:06:00PM GMT, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> We could, but that would require manually syncing CODEOWNERS
> with Maintainer.txt until that part of the process is automated.
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/5703 ;)
take care,
Gerd
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io
26 matches
Mail list logo
