From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com (out03.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.233]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.14913.1583510975379538705 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 08:09:35 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.233, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out03.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jAFXZ-0001pA-Vy; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:09:34 -0700 Received: from mta1.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.65]) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1jAFXZ-0002lV-Ad; Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:09:33 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F1C1C413A; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:09:33 -0700 (MST) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta1.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta1.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta1.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id d8A0fxTzkKhR; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:09:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.0.10.120] (c-174-52-16-57.hsd1.ut.comcast.net [174.52.16.57]) (Authenticated sender: rebecca@bsdio.com) by mta1.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5DC81C412A; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:09:32 -0700 (MST) To: devel@edk2.groups.io, Laszlo Ersek , Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel From: "Rebecca Cran" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:09:32 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-XM-SPF: eid=1jAFXZ-0002lV-Ad;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.65;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=pass X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.65 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa08.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,TooManyTo_001,TooManyTo_002,TooManyTo_003 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 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: 0.5165] * 0.6 TooManyTo_003 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 4x (uncommon) * 0.3 TooManyTo_001 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 2x (uncommon) * 0.5 TooManyTo_002 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 3x (uncommon) * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa08 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa08 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;devel@edk2.groups.io, Laszlo Ersek , Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 415 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.03 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.8 (0.9%), b_tie_ro: 2.6 (0.6%), parse: 0.74 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 11 (2.5%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.69 (0.2%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.7 (0.9%), tests_pri_-950: 1.35 (0.3%), tests_pri_-900: 1.17 (0.3%), tests_pri_-90: 38 (9.2%), check_bayes: 36 (8.7%), b_tokenize: 4.2 (1.0%), b_tok_get_all: 23 (5.4%), b_comp_prob: 2.9 (0.7%), b_tok_touch_all: 3.2 (0.8%), b_finish: 1.15 (0.3%), tests_pri_0: 345 (83.1%), check_dkim_signature: 0.52 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 106 (25.5%), poll_dns_idle: 98 (23.7%), tests_pri_10: 2.1 (0.5%), tests_pri_500: 7 (1.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Adding Bhyve support into upstream EDK2 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=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US I'm currently working on updating EDK2 support for Bhyve (https://bhyve.org/) from the edk2-stable201903 tag to edk2-stable202002. It's currently kept in a separate repo (https://github.com/freebsd/uefi-edk2), but I'd like to discuss pushing support upstream into the main edk2 repo (I guess into edk2-staging as a first step?). Would that be something people would be open to considering, or should it remain separate? Should it be a new top-level package (e.g. BhyvePkg) or could it be just a configuration option when building OVMF? It's currently maintained as a set of patches against OvmfPkg, which seems to work quite well. -- Rebecca Cran