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 4FE6921A134BB for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 06:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B56068124A; Wed, 3 May 2017 13:27:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com B56068124A Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com B56068124A Received: from [10.36.118.18] (ovpn-118-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.118.18] (may be forged)) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v43DQwts021988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 May 2017 09:27:01 -0400 To: Laszlo Ersek , Gerd Hoffmann , "Kinney, Michael D" References: <1382eb04-9646-133b-9ce5-8293cb54745f@redhat.com> <1493794647.8581.144.camel@redhat.com> <49e28e04-2a61-c3d8-790a-3c08cf664a07@redhat.com> <071089ea-c73b-3851-899f-829bfe532867@redhat.com> Cc: "Fan, Jeff" , "Yao, Jiewen" , edk2-devel-01 From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 15:26:58 +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: <071089ea-c73b-3851-899f-829bfe532867@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 03 May 2017 13:27:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: SMRAM sizes on large hosts 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: Wed, 03 May 2017 13:27:06 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/05/2017 15:14, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > I'd prefer a solution that would keep the fw logic / code flow related > to register configuration intact, and would just replace a few numbers / > constants if possible. I see. In my other answer I tried to keep it as intact as possible. I'm a bit worried about the limits on the number of fw-cfg files. Paolo > And, whether the "largest TSEG size" (number of MBs) that QEMU exposed > in the new fw_cfg file depended *only* on the machine type, or on other > config elements as well (such as max VCPU count), that would be QEMU's > prerogative of course. > > To me personally, the ability (via fw_cfg) to ask / request the > following looks best: > > - Is there a dynamic largest? (= does the fw_cfg file exist?) > - What is it exactly? (= what are its contents?) > - Please give me it. (= write 11b)