From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org 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 1A91421191F49 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 03:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50CA3307EAAC; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:34:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-121-66.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.121.66]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27EA75D776; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:34:39 +0000 (UTC) To: "Gao, Liming" , "Fu, Siyuan" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Cc: "Ni, Ruiyu" , "Ye, Ting" , "Justen, Jordan L" , "Wu, Hao A" , "Wu, Jiaxin" , Anthony Perard , "Wei, David" References: <20181122052153.89464-1-siyuan.fu@intel.com> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E36FFDD@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <5d2be195-63c4-f0d6-7102-22f0da2d1464@redhat.com> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E371852@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E371E57@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 12:34:39 +0100 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: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E371E57@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.44]); Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:34:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Add DSC/FDF include segment files for network stack X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:34:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Liming, On 11/26/18 04:31, Gao, Liming wrote: > [...] Thanks, I think I understand your points better. That doesn't mean that I agree with all of your points. :) My suggestion/request is that this series please drop the OvmfPkg & ArmVirtPkg patches for now, as it's obvious that my preferences cannot "drive" the NetworkPkg changes, let alone the general, future rules (of which NetworkPkg is just the first example). Thus, I'd like to spare Siyuan the repeated updates to OvmfPkg and ArmVirtPkg. Instead, once the NetworkPkg changes are mature enough to exemplify the future rules, and they are merged, we should file TianoCore BZs for ArmVirtPkg and OvmfPkg, to adopt the new config knobs from NetworkPkg. These BZs should be assigned to their respective package maintainers, and they should be considered "best effort". I.e. ArmVirtPkg and OvmfPkg will consume those new settings from NetworkPkg that they easily can, and fall back to the explicit configuration everywhere else. My request is that the NetworkPkg changes please remain backward compatible, so that existing platforms not break even until they are updated to take advantage of the new PCDs. Thanks! Laszlo