Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] OvmfPkg/CpuHotplugSmm: refactor hotplug logic

["Ankur Arora" <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>]

On 2021-01-26 1:32 p.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 01/26/21 22:17, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> On 2021-01-26 1:07 p.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 01/26/21 20:15, Ankur Arora wrote:
>>>> On 2021-01-26 11:01 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'll continue the review later this week.
>>>>
>>>> Acking the comments above.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile let me reprocess the series in light of the comments above.
>>>
>>> I'm at such a point now, during the v5 review, that I think I can easily
>>> re-sync.
>>>
>>> In general, I don't mind the posting of a new version of a series
>>> mid-review, *IF* we agree about it in advance.
>>>
>>> If you prefer to post a v6, for addressing the comments I've made thus
>>> far, I'm OK with that. If you'd like me to continue reviewing v5, I'm
>>> also OK with that.
>>>
>>> So it's up to you -- please state your decision, so that I know if I
>>> should proceed with v5 (later this week), or wait for v6.
>>
>> I think I would prefer to send v6. Looking at the v5 comments so far, I'm
>> sure that there's a lot of non conforming coding style issues.
>> Addressing them now (or at least a hopefully significant subset) would
>> probably save time.
> 
> I agree; thank you.
> 
> (And, for all the yelling that ECC does, I'm really surprised it didn't
> catch the "missing space between function designator and opening paren"
> wart!)

Heh. Yeah, I was surprised at how little fault ECC found in the code.

Thanks for reviewing.
Ankur

> 
>> I'm looking at sending these out by Thursday morning PT, and given that
>> you plan to continue later this week, sounds like it might not lose too
>> much review time either.
> 
> Yes, that should work fine.
> 
> Thank you, Ankur!
> Laszlo
>