From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.4445.1590580782470727642 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 04:59:42 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=SeCuWLPX; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 205.139.110.61, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1590580781; 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=XxYtZaW46nI+UIo3KQg1a74Fi+NKL50HIaX0T7MNm7k=; b=SeCuWLPXM3D/pPV0hxjboAgsTxQkgtAVz+Kca4YsWi7287yjUL0UaLgB28+8tOH10Wn+XG yKocGEMwN9FSJOhlGQvSf5WUgsRqQtquICnw/n+WPa2kNZx3kT97nIckXPn49Yvr4QbaXJ q0UhNWvvQz8yGNN2bL+37uTV+Crf8c4= 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-228-5P9SX16ZM3iyeViTKTn0pg-1; Wed, 27 May 2020 07:59:39 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5P9SX16ZM3iyeViTKTn0pg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5625680183C; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:59:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-77.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.77]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725CA12A4D; Wed, 27 May 2020 11:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v8 36/46] OvmfPkg/ResetVector: Add support for a 32-bit SEV check To: Tom Lendacky , devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel , Michael D Kinney , Liming Gao , Eric Dong , Ray Ni , Brijesh Singh References: <337fcec3-28bc-6498-1b73-0b4c7409d01d@redhat.com> <349ca934-2fcf-020c-ddb9-998a3de5e2ad@amd.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 13:59:35 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <349ca934-2fcf-020c-ddb9-998a3de5e2ad@amd.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/26/20 18:31, Tom Lendacky wrote: > On 5/25/20 11:50 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> Now I'm reviewing the differences (incrementally from v6 to v8), and I'm >> shocked how many changes you incorporated into preexistent patches, >> while keeping my R-b's. > > My apologies for this. I was experimenting with cleaning things up and > making the code more readable and I guess I forgot to either remove it > or note it as a change to be re-reviewed - thinking I had done one or > the other. I agree that it's not easy to track previously given R-b's across rebases (reordering patches, moving hunks between them, etc), especially if there's no huge need to touch up the commit messages themselves. What helps IME is to review the full set (just about to be posted) before sending, with "git-range-diff", against the last posted version. If code changes are shown for any patch (not just context differences), take notes about those patches, then perform a final rebase, dropping all the previously given tags from the affected patches. (Clearly such a "git-range-diff" is incomparably faster on the author's end than on the reviewer's end, as the author has it all in their "working set".) >> (1) Unless there was an actual bug in the v6 version of this patch, >> please let's go back to that. IOW, if the v6->v8 changes are only >> cleanups or optimizations, let's please postpone them. > > Yes, I'll revert it back to the original version. Again, sorry for all > of this churn. Thank you! Laszlo