From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.3569.1586410017103604509 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 22:26:57 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.231, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMPiK-0005dK-0U; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 23:26:56 -0600 Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.68]) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1jMPiJ-0002hW-Ff; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 23:26:55 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360F35007EE; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:26:55 -0600 (MDT) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta4.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta4.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id IZ6zvnXzQ30P; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:26:55 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [10.0.10.120] (muon.bluestop.org [65.103.231.193]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6126500A54; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:26:54 -0600 (MDT) To: Laszlo Ersek , devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel References: <20200325201652.54298-1-rebecca@bsdio.com> From: "Rebecca Cran" Message-ID: <040c7e56-cb2f-b0ae-736c-0e1a804946f1@bsdio.com> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:26:52 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-XM-SPF: eid=1jMPiJ-0002hW-Ff;;;mid=<040c7e56-cb2f-b0ae-736c-0e1a804946f1@bsdio.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.68;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=pass X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa08.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,T_TooManySym_01, T_TooManySym_02,TooManyTo_001,XMSubLong autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5002] * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.3 TooManyTo_001 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 2x (uncommon) * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa08 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_02 5+ unique symbols in subject * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa08 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Laszlo Ersek , devel@edk2.groups.io X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 281 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.05 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 15 (5.2%), b_tie_ro: 13 (4.5%), parse: 1.07 (0.4%), extract_message_metadata: 4.7 (1.7%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.90 (0.3%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.0 (1.1%), tests_pri_-950: 1.68 (0.6%), tests_pri_-900: 1.43 (0.5%), tests_pri_-90: 74 (26.3%), check_bayes: 72 (25.5%), b_tokenize: 5 (2.0%), b_tok_get_all: 20 (7.1%), b_comp_prob: 2.8 (1.0%), b_tok_touch_all: 38 (13.6%), b_finish: 1.26 (0.4%), tests_pri_0: 169 (60.0%), check_dkim_signature: 0.51 (0.2%), check_dkim_adsp: 49 (17.5%), poll_dns_idle: 44 (15.6%), tests_pri_10: 2.1 (0.7%), tests_pri_500: 7 (2.4%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 (add signed-off-by)] OvmfPkg: Add bhyve support into AcpiTimerLib X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US On 3/27/2020 1:01 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > I'm quite happy about this patch, but perhaps for an unexpected reason: > namely, because it showcases how non-intuitive and unpredictable it can > be to customize existent code for a new platform. Thanks! I was wondering if I should try and add new code into OvmfPkg, or keep it separate. Also, good point about the commit message: I get frustrated when people don't write proper/full messages, so I'm happy you called me out on it. The existing bhyve port removes everything related to QemuFwCfgLib, such as calls to QemuFwCfgFindFile in PciHostBridgeLib.c. I'm not sure how I should proceed given that there's so much commonality between the ovmf and bhyve versions of the file: currently calls to QemuFwCfgFindFile don't resolve since references are absent from the .dsc file, so I'm wondering if I should re-add it, add a "#ifndef BHYVE" or similar to avoid attempting to compile that code, or duplicate the file with that code removed? -- Rebecca Cran