From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF96F21A134BB for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 06:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A09A8124B; Wed, 3 May 2017 13:55:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 2A09A8124B Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 2A09A8124B Received: from [10.36.118.18] (ovpn-118-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.118.18] (may be forged)) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v43DtSVn015037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 May 2017 09:55:32 -0400 To: Laszlo Ersek , Gerd Hoffmann , "Kinney, Michael D" References: <1382eb04-9646-133b-9ce5-8293cb54745f@redhat.com> <1493794647.8581.144.camel@redhat.com> <49e28e04-2a61-c3d8-790a-3c08cf664a07@redhat.com> <071089ea-c73b-3851-899f-829bfe532867@redhat.com> <184f2ebc-ea97-ccf3-7207-ad7b49d9c903@redhat.com> Cc: "Fan, Jeff" , "Yao, Jiewen" , edk2-devel-01 From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <2e6dec37-8b69-979b-c856-406233273066@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 15:55:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <184f2ebc-ea97-ccf3-7207-ad7b49d9c903@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 03 May 2017 13:55:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: SMRAM sizes on large hosts X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 13:55:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/05/2017 15:35, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> I see. In my other answer I tried to keep it as intact as possible. >> >> I'm a bit worried about the limits on the number of fw-cfg files. > We've promoted that to a device property in QEMU commit e12f3a13e2e1 > ("fw-cfg: turn FW_CFG_FILE_SLOTS into a device property", 2017-01-12), > and we've raised the count to 0x20 for 2.9 machtypes, in commit > a5b3ebfd23bc ("fw-cfg: bump "x-file-slots" to 0x20 for 2.9+ machine > types", 2017-01-12). > > ... Or does your concern already account for those? I was aware it had been bumped, though not exactly how much. 32 is better than before, but still on the lowish side... Paolo