From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4626721A04830 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6959103676; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com A6959103676 Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com A6959103676 Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-154.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.154]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCE078C08; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:05 +0000 (UTC) To: Jordan Justen , edk2-devel-01 References: <20170429201500.18496-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20170429201500.18496-3-lersek@redhat.com> <149351328512.20670.1563878734495138189@jljusten-skl> <030f8312-35ce-5c86-205c-2ee6c0b5ab8b@redhat.com> <149358697668.23065.6363402854761002239@jljusten-skl> <149365940885.25909.1007719045522991203@jljusten-skl> <88d156c9-c18e-c4e8-b9a3-641a1b6b4102@redhat.com> <149366640991.26266.1222435765632598609@jljusten-skl> <62f44903-c06a-fb0f-0761-17cf9107620e@redhat.com> <149368192252.29568.13017173745830665833@jljusten-skl> Cc: Gary Ching-Pang Lin From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:39:04 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <149368192252.29568.13017173745830665833@jljusten-skl> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Tue, 02 May 2017 14:39:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] OvmfPkg: introduce FD_SIZE_4MB (mainly) for Windows HCK X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 14:39:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/02/17 01:38, Jordan Justen wrote: > On 2017-05-01 16:07:48, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 05/01/17 21:20, Jordan Justen wrote: >>> >>> At this I'd just like figure out what to do about the 4MB layout, so >>> can we stop getting worked up over this side show? >> >> Thanks for calling it a side show, real friendly. > > Ok, I apologize. The 'side show' comment applies equally to me. Can we > please just move on? We obviously disagree how to determine how full > 2MB is, but it doesn't much matter since you'll soon be abandoning it > entirely. We have too much room in the 4MB fridge to be concerned > about this. OK. I wouldn't mind if we made more room for the varstore in the 2MB build, even at the expense of FVMAIN_COMPACT, if we also kept the current 2MB build the default, so that the "new" (incompatible) 2MB build doesn't come as a surprise to unsuspecting downstreams. Regarding the 4MB build: - we can discuss that on top of the above "new" 2MB build, - we can discuss it instead of the above "new" 2MB build, - we can postpone it for now, for upstream. If you do agree that a 4MB build should be offered in upstream, then I'm proposing my proposal (obviously :) ). If your main focus is the "new" 2MB build, and beause mine is the 4MB build, perhaps we aren't even disagreeing as much, since this doesn't have to be an either-or. If you have specific observations for the 4MB structure I proposed, I'd be glad to hear those as well. > >> The only email (that I can see) in this thread that I haven't reacted to is: >> >> http://mid.mail-archive.com/149365894632.25909.11739243410891079091@jljusten-skl >> >> where you wrote "I'd rather go with 128k, and I'd also rather stay with >> 2MB". > > You dropped my ":)" :) > > Ok, me adding that was a poor choice, despite including a smiley. I > meant to convey was: "Ok, fine, let's figure out the 4MB layout, but I > still want to whine about it a little more." I'm sorry that my irony-meter failed (I hope this isn't a poor choice of words); the downstream deadlines are really close, I'd been working day and night over the weekend, and I mistook the smiley for "I'll never agree with you on this, but here's a smiley to take the edge off". Thanks, Laszlo