From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5489A1A1DFE for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id c133so41772833wmd.1 for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:32:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=HmGHBc30GO3lcfeaPeAegtT1c7O5zEP/MGjzSFk6tE8=; b=QItK2bkw76tfdGJaXLJ9Tfq6plgE6mAzbukonrxyuJ7/GkRcETN2V8xChz7p9eICfO oURfRF+j1PMJ7kv1IEBMle8LYrCtYhBiDpdHiW8BBzrYaAEXUbib0LyGSS0H/5FA09nS GXnYoYfW+dd1o/Phzj7s+ktQrrII5DtM2bQEY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=HmGHBc30GO3lcfeaPeAegtT1c7O5zEP/MGjzSFk6tE8=; b=OsJdCgMkDqi7pHYTFjN/S1ak6DabntT2A6Jh0ipWc5alpGhNaEvRuozG4T4U73qFYs C18rDcs3TltWKVp7u+L1cCMub8STRs5ffq7iGdWsUP27Sg6cqdc6VQZ7O6uqbQuPKicA oy/KEYb32W2IqJ1xbyUs6JLeCrIzd4oB+hXmQISoPjtMdF+dtzq0zFSyy1s9fdJzQj4E nUgQajsm8E/4TrCNZLYHP3K6lKIAkfWC37BoF5Spxqmu4kGdJwXgfiB6h8NhcJIF4T/x E0QqiL5wWR0DvSw8XXPwfqIpWDsKv0NF3tCeMeK1enUTX+DTsVSnbdQV8MQCsRrBxj5S 5GgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMdnfri/RvK6E7pH1OKDf89Qehkbb68SPaLLX0PIkJylbbm30A2D4NTuFdL5HTUlgRf X-Received: by 10.28.113.20 with SMTP id m20mr4469091wmc.82.1472841137832; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bk7sm8149164wjc.36.2016.09.02.11.32.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:32:15 +0100 From: Leif Lindholm To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: edk2-devel-01 , Laszlo Ersek , Michael D Kinney , Liming Gao Message-ID: <20160902183215.GG4715@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <20160902142912.17297-1-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20160902142912.17297-2-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <6C8DC7F6-2459-4CD6-A556-3B17A1FBBF5F@linaro.org> <20160902152351.GB4715@bivouac.eciton.net> <20160902180513.GE4715@bivouac.eciton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] MdePkg/Misc: Move ARM* BaseMemoryLibStm to MdePkg X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 18:32:19 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 07:11:02PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> Added the fact that the Stm is not in great shape, I would really > >> prefer to get rid of it rather than 'promote' it to the standard ARM > >> implementation. Note that we will need another round of updates to the > >> platform .DSCs when we remove the Stm version again. > > > > My main concern is leaving the master branch unusable for ARM during > > the Labor Day weekend. If we don't resolve this tonight, with the best > > will in the world we won't be back to a functioning master before > > Tuesday evening. > > I agree that fixing the branch now would be nice. I just don't > understand why fixing BaseMemoryLibStm in place is not a better > solution, especially if we are nuking it anyway next week. That way, > we have to change all the platforms only a single time. Mainly because we don't _know_ that it will be resolved next week and I'm currently having some trust issues regarding these libraries. If that's what it takes to get consensus, sure, I'll go along with that. I'm fully aware I'm being slightly irrational here. So where to now? Just push 2-3 from Wednesday? / Leif