From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.2015.1587483518873215324 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 08:38:39 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.231, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jQuyq-0006OZ-O9; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:38:36 -0600 Received: from mta5.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.69]) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1jQuyp-0006rt-RU; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:38:36 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFFC1280475; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:38:35 -0600 (MDT) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta5.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta5.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta5.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id NlbJmYDGKjii; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:38:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [10.0.10.120] (muon.bluestop.org [65.103.231.193]) by mta5.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA96F1280266; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:38:34 -0600 (MDT) To: Laszlo Ersek , devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel , Leif Lindholm , Michael Kinney , Andrew Fish , Peter Grehan References: <20200421030955.114850-1-rebecca@bsdio.com> From: "Rebecca Cran" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:38:34 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-XM-SPF: eid=1jQuyp-0006rt-RU;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.69;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=pass X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.69 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa02.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,T_TooManySym_01,TooManyTo_001, XMSubLong autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5010] * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.3 TooManyTo_001 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 2x (uncommon) * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Laszlo Ersek , devel@edk2.groups.io X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 689 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.03 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.3 (0.5%), b_tie_ro: 2.4 (0.3%), parse: 1.41 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 15 (2.2%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.90 (0.3%), tests_pri_-1000: 4.7 (0.7%), tests_pri_-950: 1.44 (0.2%), tests_pri_-900: 1.10 (0.2%), tests_pri_-90: 90 (13.1%), check_bayes: 88 (12.8%), b_tokenize: 8 (1.1%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.9%), b_comp_prob: 2.9 (0.4%), b_tok_touch_all: 69 (10.0%), b_finish: 0.61 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 263 (38.2%), check_dkim_signature: 0.44 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 24 (3.4%), poll_dns_idle: 316 (45.9%), tests_pri_10: 1.78 (0.3%), tests_pri_500: 304 (44.2%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Add BhyvePkg, to support the bhyve hypervisor X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US On 4/21/20 9:27 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > (1) For example, I can't find the patch that adds > "BhyvePkg/BhyvePkgX64.dsc", in spite of the file being listed in the > cumulative diffstat below. That's in the "Add BhyvePkg" patch. > (2) I also don't really understand why v2 / v3 have been posted, given > that the bhyve-specific ResetSystemLib instance that I suggested under > v1, based on your proposed code, still depends on the ResetSystemLib > cleanup series that I posted. The idea is that you would base the new > bhyve ResetSystemLib instance on my ResetSystemLib refactoring. Since the changes to ResetSystemLib aren't required for this series and will require rework, I removed them. > Because my series has not been merged yet, for such a bhyve rebase you'd > have to pick up my patches from the list temporarily. That's a 100% > usable approach, but then, this v3 series of yours does not seem to > introduce *any* ResetSystemLib instance. Have you decided to postpone > that work for later? Sorry, yes I have decided to postpone those changes since as you say I'd need to pick up your patches from the list. > In the end, please wait until I get around merging the ResetSystemLib > refactoring . I'd prefer not to, since introducing BhyvePkg doesn't depend on the ResetSystemLib changes. Could this series not be committed, then a subsequent commit be made to use the ResetSystemLib changes? > Then, > please post a new, comprehensive bhyve set. Patch sets pending review on > a mailing list are not incremental; new versions entirely supersede > earlier versions. Patches are considered incremental only when (a) > earlier patches have been merged, or (b) there's an agreement that in > the particular situation a new patch (or a few patches) can be appended > to a pending series. I totally understand that. Both the v2 and v3 patch series are independent and comprehensive (except for the removal of the ResetSystemLib changes, and combining a couple of changes together that didn't need to be separate). -- Rebecca Cran