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.web08.11625.1605121756727771655
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:09:16 -0800
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=KctVMU9F;
 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=1605121755;
	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=4qcdOO4Io6o21xCkkE2WbmWAsdiQ5om5rwJLOu1Z59s=;
	b=KctVMU9F/La+JQo2y8fdhnzI7p57p/N8RW7vUojRWFxMYCVsEq2K6anVPwC0zLI1BUUjw5
	IypgzOkW3wVHkDq7lhyl8dK1GymQO3jwcpFvnOYfiz9iCaFdZfKv/2RX09zMQMsiKg5u25
	HPpt/H4OsM20HLPeWPOShfgw/kwNnBo=
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-494-ScnyPZDUOImPyrUSAMT1iQ-1; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:09:12 -0500
X-MC-Unique: ScnyPZDUOImPyrUSAMT1iQ-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A9E8100746C;
	Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:09:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-85.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.85])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D156510013C0;
	Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:09:08 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 0/2] CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: Add native instruction support for X64
To: "Yao, Jiewen" <jiewen.yao@intel.com>,
 "Zurcher, Christopher J" <christopher.j.zurcher@intel.com>
Cc: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>,
 gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>, "Wang, Jian J"
 <jian.j.wang@intel.com>, "Lu, XiaoyuX" <xiaoyux.lu@intel.com>,
 "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
References: <20201103215834.7533-1-christopher.j.zurcher@intel.com>
 <1644D590FF4B7423.25549@groups.io>
 <CY4PR11MB1288C3D8C9EEAFFD9078ED8B8CED0@CY4PR11MB1288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <MWHPR1101MB21250DCF954A590B56102BFFB3ED0@MWHPR1101MB2125.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB12888D835FCD3252EB6F85E98CED0@CY4PR11MB1288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <DM5PR1101MB2123213196CF05E96A932DDFB3ED0@DM5PR1101MB2123.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <BN6PR11MB128438F98801006ABF11BA8F8CED0@BN6PR11MB1284.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <MWHPR1101MB21258919C4FA5ECB5D8EB632B3EC0@MWHPR1101MB2125.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <7D73B5FD-CBCA-4E8C-B73B-930722C9FCF7@intel.com>
 <903654d9-f903-734c-1d07-2f83a8c40099@redhat.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1288533B7D1C420014B1C0628CE90@CY4PR11MB1288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <MWHPR1101MB2125B99478F32CC699BFB281B3E80@MWHPR1101MB2125.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB128800913F53489ACE69BB748CE80@CY4PR11MB1288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <8bb817f1-d473-467a-f33e-a3c22a79528b@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:09:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB128800913F53489ACE69BB748CE80@CY4PR11MB1288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22
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 11/11/20 03:19, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> I full agree with long term plan. E.g. we need remove ApiHook.c as well.
> 
> I more concern about the short term plan, if you want to check in this and get the capability.
> 
> I think we need this capability for GCC tool chain as well, so I am OK to check in .S.
> This is auto generated. I do not think it is a step back.
> 
> We can remove them together with ApiHook later, in the long term.

Agreed on all counts.

Laszlo