Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v9 0/4] Add safe unaccepted memory behavior

["Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 12:11, Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, that I did not say clearly.
>
> When I say: "sign-off", I mean the Linux community and the maintainer have reached the consensus and agree to merge the patch for OS.
>
> Would you please send to me the email from the maintainer, or the URL to record the conversation?
>

I am the maintainer.

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ard
> > Biesheuvel
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 5:32 PM
> > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> > Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>; Dionna Glaze
> > <dionnaglaze@google.com>; Xu, Min M <min.m.xu@intel.com>; James
> > Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>; Tom Lendacky
> > <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>; Aktas, Erdem <erdemaktas@google.com>;
> > Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> > <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v9 0/4] Add safe unaccepted memory
> > behavior
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 08:33, Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is API between BIOS and OS.
> > >
> > > I would like to see sign-off from OS side at least, before we can merge to
> > EDKII main.
> > >
> >
> > I have already indicated (and am happy to repeat here) that for Linux,
> > I am fine with this approach, if it amounts to locating a protocol and
> > invoking it to inform the firmware that it doesn't need to accept all
> > available memory.
> >
> > Once we phase out the eager accept from the firmware entirely, we can
> > remove the protocol as well, and the OS loader will look for it and
> > simply not find it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 3:18 PM
> > > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>; Ard Biescheuvel
> > > > <ardb@kernel.org>; Xu, Min M <min.m.xu@intel.com>; James Bottomley
> > > > <jejb@linux.ibm.com>; Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>;
> > Aktas,
> > > > Erdem <erdemaktas@google.com>; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>;
> > Kinney,
> > > > Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v9 0/4] Add safe unaccepted memory
> > > > behavior
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:46:34AM +0000, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> > > > > Hi Dionna
> > > > > I think I understand your intention.
> > > > > I believe we need OS side and UEFI standard sign-off for this
> > > > *BZ3987_MEMORY_ACCEPTANCE_PROTOCOL*, because OS is the
> > consumer,
> > > > right?
> > > > > If so, I suggest you maintain the work in a edk2-stage area for
> > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging.
> > > > >
> > > > > EDKII main branch is for production. MdePkg can only include the API
> > > > definition approved by UEFI standard.
> > > > > EDK2 staging is a place for POC / collaboration. That is why I think edk2
> > > > staging is more proper place for this feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > Without OS and UEFI standard sign-off, I don't think this
> > > > BZ3987_MEMORY_ACCEPTANCE_PROTOCOL can be integrated to EDKII
> > main
> > > > branch, especially in MdePkg/Include/Protocol/MemoryAcceptance.h.
> > > >
> > > > Ok.  Reading through the bug (comment 53) it looks like Intel's take on
> > > > this is that it will simply not be needed long-term.
> > > >
> > > > How about adding it to OvmfPkg/Include/Protocol/MemoryAcceptance.h
> > > > then?
> > > >
> > > > It surely will be very useful short-term.  If it turns out that lazy
> > > > accept support indeed becomes a standard feature we might drop this
> > > > in 3-5 years.  Or promote it to MdePkg should that not be the case.
> > > >
> > > > take care,
> > > >   Gerd
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>