Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 0/2] CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: Add native instruction support for X64

["Zurcher, Christopher J" <christopher.j.zurcher@intel.com>]

Laszlo and Ard,
In the description for commit 214a3b79417f it says "disabling it by default, and re-enabling it explicitly for packages
that depend on it."
Is there a documented process to re-enable the COMMON keyword for a particular package? Is this even possible?

Thanks,
Christopher Zurcher

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Zurcher,
> Christopher J
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 17:22
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; lersek@redhat.com; Yao, Jiewen
> <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> Cc: 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>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 0/2] CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: Add native
> instruction support for X64
> 
> Sorry for the thrash on this; in testing the GCC build with .S files, I found
> that there is still a build failure due to the inclusion of a "common" data
> section in the OpenSSL code, which is explicitly removed by Base Tools
> changes in commit 214a3b79417f. So I think without removing this restriction
> or changing OpenSSL in a future patch, we will not be able to build the
> accelerated functions for GCC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Christopher Zurcher
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 11:09
> > To: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Zurcher, Christopher J
> > <christopher.j.zurcher@intel.com>
> > Cc: 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>
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 0/2] CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: Add native
> > instruction support for X64
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>