On 05/05/21 01:03, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>
> On 5/4/21 3:28 PM, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>> On 5/4/21 2:55 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
>>> On 5/4/21 2:07 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
> Return EFI_UNSUPPORTED (0x8000_0003), or even EFI_NO_MAPPING
> (0x8000_0017), for value 6
On 05/04/21 22:28, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>
> On 5/4/21 2:55 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
>> On 5/4/21 2:07 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
Return EFI_UNSUPPORTED (0x8000_0003), or even EFI_NO_MAPPING
(0x8000_0017), for value 6 (FAIL_SIZEMISMATCH).
>>> I am not sure if we
On 05/04/21 21:55, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>
> On 5/4/21 2:07 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
>>> Return EFI_UNSUPPORTED (0x8000_0003), or even EFI_NO_MAPPING
>>> (0x8000_0017), for value 6 (FAIL_SIZEMISMATCH).
>> I am not sure if we really want to do this. You will see later in the
>> patches
On 05/04/21 21:07, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>
> On 5/4/21 8:58 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> (4) The order of parameters listed in this comment block differs from
>> the actual parameter list.
>>
>> The ECC plugin of the edk2 CI will catch this issue anyway. So,
>> before submitting the patch set to the
On 5/4/21 3:28 PM, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> On 5/4/21 2:55 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
>> On 5/4/21 2:07 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
Return EFI_UNSUPPORTED (0x8000_0003), or even EFI_NO_MAPPING
(0x8000_0017), for value 6 (FAIL_SIZEMISMATCH).
>>> I am not sure if we r
On 5/4/21 2:55 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
> On 5/4/21 2:07 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
>>> Return EFI_UNSUPPORTED (0x8000_0003), or even EFI_NO_MAPPING
>>> (0x8000_0017), for value 6 (FAIL_SIZEMISMATCH).
>> I am not sure if we really want to do this. You will see later in t
On 5/4/21 2:07 PM, Brijesh Singh via groups.io wrote:
>> Return EFI_UNSUPPORTED (0x8000_0003), or even EFI_NO_MAPPING
>> (0x8000_0017), for value 6 (FAIL_SIZEMISMATCH).
> I am not sure if we really want to do this. You will see later in the
> patches that in some cases the PVALIDATE will return a
On 5/4/21 8:58 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 04/30/21 13:51, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>> BZ:
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.tianocore.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D3275&data=04%7C01%7Cbrijesh.singh%40amd.com%7C6ceeec6c984d468bb87908d90f04b789%7C3dd8961fe4884
On 05/04/21 15:58, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> The leading comment block of the function is supposed to explain these
> associations:
>
> @retval EFI_SUCCESSSuccessful completion (regardless of
> whether the Validated bit changed state).
> @retval INVALID_PARAME
On 04/30/21 13:51, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3275
>
> The PVALIDATE instruction validates or rescinds validation of a guest
> page RMP entry. Upon completion, a return code is stored in EAX, rFLAGS
> bits OF, ZF, AF, PF and SF are set based on this re
BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3275
The PVALIDATE instruction validates or rescinds validation of a guest
page RMP entry. Upon completion, a return code is stored in EAX, rFLAGS
bits OF, ZF, AF, PF and SF are set based on this return code. If the
instruction completed succesful
11 matches
Mail list logo
