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 654C71A1DFE for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (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 E345D4E4C2; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:19:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-13.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.13]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u7JDJroN020331; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:19:53 -0400 To: "Zeng, Star" , "Fan, Jeff" , "edk2-devel@ml01.01.org" References: <1470128388-17960-1-git-send-email-jeff.fan@intel.com> <1470128388-17960-49-git-send-email-jeff.fan@intel.com> <4f61b2b4-eeb4-8435-412f-20848347c88e@redhat.com> <542CF652F8836A4AB8DBFAAD40ED192A143D9CFD@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <795dd4fe-cd16-c0f1-7f04-f78601e2c7a8@redhat.com> <82c6b5c9-dcab-f3c1-5ffe-20fb27ddb1af@intel.com> <6cd44902-8c07-8f76-1204-d79c85559ae5@intel.com> Cc: "Kinney, Michael D" , "Tian, Feng" From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <91a468f8-924f-868c-a52b-1957010ab1b0@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:19:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6cd44902-8c07-8f76-1204-d79c85559ae5@intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:19:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Patch v5 48/48] UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: Add gEfiVariableArchProtocolGuid dependency 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, 19 Aug 2016 13:19:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/19/16 04:57, Zeng, Star wrote: > On 2016/8/19 10:45, Zeng, Star wrote: >> On 2016/8/19 10:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> On 08/19/16 04:00, Fan, Jeff wrote: >>>> Laszlo, >>>> >>>> I could revert this patch firstly. >>> >>> Thank you, that would be very kind. >>> >>>> Could you please dig out the OVMF to address the potential issue, >>>> then I could re-commit it for those platforms required this patch. >>> >>> The problem is that this week (what remains of it) and the next week I >>> won't really have time for this -- tomorrow I'm hoping to finish up >>> something else in a mortal hurry. It was actually in preparation for >>> rebasing / pushing that work that I pulled "master", and found out about >>> the regression. >>> >>> Can we perhaps get help from the variable stack maintainers? What's the >>> design of the (lack of) depexes on those drivers? >> >> Variable driver consumes >> PcdFlashNvStorageVariableBase(64)/PcdFlashNvStorageVariableSize to >> produce *gEfiVariableArchProtocolGuid* protocol. >> Variable driver registers (SMM)FTW protocol notification function >> SmmFtwNotificationEvent() or FtwNotificationEvent() to produce >> *gEfiVariableWriteArchProtocolGuid* protocol. >> (SMM)FTW driver has dependency on gEfiSmmFirmwareVolumeBlockProtocolGuid >> or gEfiFirmwareVolumeBlockProtocolGuid. >> >> I am not so sure what you said about the (lack of) depexes on those >> drivers. >> >> Did you see variable driver loaded and started when ASSERT appeared on >> OVMF? > > > You may could compare the serial logs to get if there is some driver > execution flow differences for the images built without and with this > patch. Thanks, I'll try to do that the week after next or so, hopefully. Laszlo