Re: 回复: 回复: [edk2-devel] 回复: 回复: 回复: [PATCH v2 01/11] MdePkg, OvmfPkg: Clean up GHCB field offsets and save area

["Dong, Eric" <eric.dong@intel.com>]

I agree with Laszlo, we need to care Bisectability first.

Thanks,
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Lendacky, Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 12:34 AM
To: gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@redhat.com; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: 'Brijesh Singh' <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Liu, Zhiguang <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>; Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; 'Ard Biesheuvel' <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
Subject: Re: 回复: 回复: [edk2-devel] 回复: 回复: 回复: [PATCH v2 01/11] MdePkg, OvmfPkg: Clean up GHCB field offsets and save area

On 10/22/20 9:57 PM, gaoliming wrote:
> Laszlo:
>  I agree Bisectability is important. I want to consider the impact and balance the change. Now, this change will update UefiCpuPkg. I also want to collect the feedback from UefiCpuPkg maintainer: Ray and Eric. 

Ray/Eric,

Any feedback on this question (specifically for patch #10 of this series, not this patch)? I'd also prefer to maintain bisectability and therefore submit the changes to the UefiCpuPkg and OvmfPkg in the same patch.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> Thanks
> Liming
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: bounce+27952+66536+4905953+8761045@groups.io
>> <bounce+27952+66536+4905953+8761045@groups.io> 代表 Laszlo Ersek
>> 发送时间: 2020年10月22日 21:13
>> 收件人: gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; devel@edk2.groups.io; 
>> thomas.lendacky@amd.com
>> 抄送: 'Brijesh Singh' <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; 'Michael D Kinney'
>> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; 'Zhiguang Liu' 
>> <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>; 'Jordan Justen' <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; 'Ard Biesheuvel'
>> <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
>> 主题: Re: 回复: [edk2-devel] 回复: 回复: 回复: [PATCH v2 01/11] MdePkg,
>> OvmfPkg: Clean up GHCB field offsets and save area
>>
>> On 10/22/20 03:25, gaoliming wrote:
>>> Tom:
>>>   For the patch in UefiCpuPkg, this changes the library interface. 
>>> So, the
>> consumer and producer code is required to be changed together. There 
>> is no good compatible way to do it. I still prefer to separate them 
>> for the different package. Although the first commit breaks the tree, 
>> your patch is the patch serial, they will be merged together. Its impact should be small.
>>
>> I really disagree here. Bisectability is way more important, in my 
>> opinion, than avoiding a multi-package patch.
>>
>> I agree we should avoid multi-package patches as much as we can -- 
>> but not more than we can. Bisectability (= keeping the tree buildable 
>> at every commit) is very important, in my opinion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Laszlo
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> 
>