From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@citrix.com header.s=securemail header.b=Z3iYoW3p; spf=pass (domain: citrix.com, ip: 216.71.155.144, mailfrom: anthony.perard@citrix.com) Received: from esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com [216.71.155.144]) by groups.io with SMTP; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 08:12:45 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1565622765; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Q8EuwPBYlbDV3XIo2IRpvl/bh1/FZfO5tWdBHjQZxwM=; b=Z3iYoW3pFrJatmhUFDKqgQ0KRE998L8Me4oQfJHQOuYWYZ/tPD2EHcsh JPbhvwMOqUcxgPH9h5cpLyXjwSD2vwzDWy86gSgTSNeAcExWAnwJBTolp R97uRJhx5cq3j/g+BCCBSv4wmptnSf4c/VmqM+NIVXkL3H1VEMIaTZiej 0=; Authentication-Results: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=anthony.perard@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=anthony.perard@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com Received-SPF: None (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anthony.perard@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-sender="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of anthony.perard@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-sender="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="anthony.perard@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-SDR: 4to+7nvQe4HyUPtmzzGCoBMa4W0uSJNeJsAJyKEHB/ei3+5fFmPV4g3PvATrUj2Tyd3G//p23F 8dqzxr4bkAd2ZdxDkrTRyJkFgtkrTeHNEICy9aGWUKxQnoUqF/eeKYzNuvX0jy8Q0gRjLoZXYb YhdT3K6px9fpid7GPDBofKCtkbUDmeUzF44WG0RzkaQfbB3YCO5I+j/oVYDK0tWdqm3idYRJ/g PswcJ0pJ3MtOmU3u5KlSiOG68ZiMcE+z+6vSyjTXzm85TwCq8INB7UsZjEffNz1cQRasdw4ABC vW0= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 4361461 X-Ironport-Server: esa4.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,377,1559534400"; d="scan'208";a="4361461" Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:12:37 +0100 From: "Anthony PERARD" To: Laszlo Ersek CC: , Julien Grall , , Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel , Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= , Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v4 00/35] Specific platform to run OVMF in Xen PVH and HVM guests Message-ID: <20190812151237.GB1289@perard.uk.xensource.com> References: <20190729153944.24239-1-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <1ba55a93-e880-6fe3-abfc-a840d956bf3c@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1ba55a93-e880-6fe3-abfc-a840d956bf3c@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Return-Path: anthony.perard@citrix.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:10:13PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > On 07/29/19 17:39, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > Patch series available in this git branch: > > https://xenbits.xen.org/git-http/people/aperard/ovmf.git br.platform-xen-pvh-v4 > > > > Changes in v4: > > - patch "OvmfPkg/XenPlatformPei: Reserve hvmloader's memory only when it has > > run" was removed, and instead a different change is done in > > "OvmfPkg/XenPlatformPei: Rework memory detection" > > - other changes detailed in the notes of each patch > > I've gone through the v4 series. If reviewers on the xen-devel list > think v4 is okay to merge, I can do that (with the small fixups I > offered here and there). I suggest that we wait a few days -- please > ping me when you believe the review on xen-devel has concluded. > > If you prefer to post v5, that works as well of course. There's a few more small fixup proposed by Roger, should I post a v5 for them? (and maybe only CC you and the lists.) Otherwise, I've pushed the branch br.platform-xen-pvh-v4.1 to my repo [1] where I believe I've collected all the small fixups. [1] https://xenbits.xen.org/git-http/people/aperard/ovmf.git br.platform-xen-pvh-v4.1 Thanks, -- Anthony PERARD