From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.74.1611696782462126584 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:33:02 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=bm0N1gDU; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 63.128.21.124, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611696781; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=40b3Yl+VRn5BG3GULnUpwHBmLaMBDwwYYrOBpmdeZzg=; b=bm0N1gDUeKxcAnlEnUVgRvPk+kkgr9CywteDmKDP6/DFsrBrRSfl5QQUwtcO3PafwgGgjx g9omKWHXvANsmxJSQ+FCpCkLW5+EVHr8Zq3DOAi6u1vaF9PUqo+Hea5Cz+jk537/zeNMrr 9qfG+u0OXv3sRAs4TilIRdhgph2uBAo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-274-NVWtYZ5kNO2x7s_bduYM0Q-1; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:32:59 -0500 X-MC-Unique: NVWtYZ5kNO2x7s_bduYM0Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12E275B365; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 21:32:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-112-219.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.219]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5821560C5F; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 21:32:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] OvmfPkg/CpuHotplugSmm: refactor hotplug logic To: Ankur Arora , devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: imammedo@redhat.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel , Aaron Young References: <20210126064440.299596-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com> <20210126064440.299596-2-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com> <3f3fd01d-78a9-315c-85e3-b5788b8d6489@redhat.com> <4a1e8dd7-51e4-165c-64c1-d7d6fea6eafc@oracle.com> <53e8f8dc-99ef-9b13-c92f-e3d63ab39409@redhat.com> <02cc6e35-1bc0-9f92-54f8-b26ecaa597c9@oracle.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: <0bcaba31-2e44-f228-1ab6-396194c3b77f@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 22:32:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <02cc6e35-1bc0-9f92-54f8-b26ecaa597c9@oracle.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/26/21 22:17, Ankur Arora wrote: > On 2021-01-26 1:07 p.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 01/26/21 20:15, Ankur Arora wrote: >>> On 2021-01-26 11:01 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >>>> I'll continue the review later this week. >>> >>> Acking the comments above. >> >> Thank you! >> >>> Meanwhile let me reprocess the series in light of the comments above. >> >> I'm at such a point now, during the v5 review, that I think I can easily >> re-sync. >> >> In general, I don't mind the posting of a new version of a series >> mid-review, *IF* we agree about it in advance. >> >> If you prefer to post a v6, for addressing the comments I've made thus >> far, I'm OK with that. If you'd like me to continue reviewing v5, I'm >> also OK with that. >> >> So it's up to you -- please state your decision, so that I know if I >> should proceed with v5 (later this week), or wait for v6. > > I think I would prefer to send v6. Looking at the v5 comments so far, I'm > sure that there's a lot of non conforming coding style issues. > Addressing them now (or at least a hopefully significant subset) would > probably save time. I agree; thank you. (And, for all the yelling that ECC does, I'm really surprised it didn't catch the "missing space between function designator and opening paren" wart!) > I'm looking at sending these out by Thursday morning PT, and given that > you plan to continue later this week, sounds like it might not lose too > much review time either. Yes, that should work fine. Thank you, Ankur! Laszlo