From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 209.132.183.28, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by groups.io with SMTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 06:16:32 -0700
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 mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED5964040;
	Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-127.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.127])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7029B60BAE;
	Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:16:31 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] UEFI Variable SMI Reduction
To: "Kubacki, Michael A" <michael.a.kubacki@intel.com>,
 "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>
References: <49AB4ACB9627B8468F29D589A27B745588AA4398@ORSMSX121.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <5cb08fa7-b4c4-d8a6-155f-986eaa207f90@redhat.com>
 <49AB4ACB9627B8468F29D589A27B745588AAA827@ORSMSX121.amr.corp.intel.com>
From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <d90c7690-437a-f54d-153e-28d65478da57@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:16:30 +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: <49AB4ACB9627B8468F29D589A27B745588AAA827@ORSMSX121.amr.corp.intel.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 09/09/19 20:03, Kubacki, Michael A wrote:
> I completely understand the need for granular breakup of changes for code review and future maintenance. I would not send this as a single patch on the mailing list for formal code review. Due to the size of the change, the main point here was to initially focus feedback on the high-level approach and design sparing the review of implementation details for an actual code review. Though I understand for those interested, it is much easier to digest the code in a clean patch series so I will send that RFC series to the list once I incorporate the feedback already received.

Thank you!

> I replied elsewhere inline.

For those answers as well.

Laszlo