From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.5335.1680292017075719018
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Fri, 31 Mar 2023 12:46:57 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=MrHjzMP5;
 spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 170.10.133.124, mailfrom: kraxel@redhat.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
	s=mimecast20190719; t=1680292016;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=QHDGalDbMF2ZvEvCzrEXRQOtT34Qxfj0pXroFeEoaF8=;
	b=MrHjzMP5KJ5Xq+U0JiEw6lHAxPfHpsacErIhnZjwKh2hd0MYRVZcTFU58GVLgWhr9vxyAQ
	v92ypNrzTO5nQmMxYuaY5qIDLQe/F08KQcirsQ69YzIxYEtBpK5ojap7H1hA2nbbJq0v72
	+GwVyiM2H3ZMS19PKOR/zZcrk+OP0ro=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com
 [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS
 (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 us-mta-344-VIGFn22qNr2K8zIJmViT-A-1; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:46:52 -0400
X-MC-Unique: VIGFn22qNr2K8zIJmViT-A-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C587E884EC7;
	Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:46:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.193.100])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98F7D4020C83;
	Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:46:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 6736D18000A3; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 21:46:50 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 21:46:50 +0200
From: "Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com>
To: "Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>
Cc: "devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>, 
	"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PR fails due to OVMF time out
Message-ID: <hhigti55nalqi2gzp6la23jdk5lfrji75iftprjbcy7zwfg775@yr6n5edvst5f>
References: <MN6PR11MB8244CEF10A845A1EC2B8AFCF8C8F9@MN6PR11MB8244.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN6PR11MB8244CEF10A845A1EC2B8AFCF8C8F9@MN6PR11MB8244.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.2
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 03:00:37PM +0000, Ni, Ray wrote:
> Hi,
> I found several of my PRs cannot pass the CI due to OVMF boot timeout.
> e.g.: Mktme fix by niruiyu * Pull Request #4072 * tianocore/edk2 (github.com)<https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/4072>
> 
> I also one PR from Ard (X64 text reloc fixes by ardbiesheuvel * Pull Request #4216 * tianocore/edk2 (github.com)<https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/4216>) failed as well.
> 
> But I remember Mike increased the boot timeout from 1min to 2 mins.
> Why does OVMF boot require more time than before?
> 
> Is that because Gerd enabled the SMP 4 boot?

That could be the reason.  It happened to work in my CI test run,
but maybe I was just lucky.

take care,
  Gerd