On 07/10/19 21:38, Kinney, Michael D wrote: > Laszlo, > > I agree with your feedback. Process must be followed. > > I also agree that it may make sense to add some more maintainers > to the MdePkg, especially for some of the content in MdePkg that > is closely related to the UefiCpuPkg content.
Should we ask Ray & Eric to submit a suitable patch for Maintainers.txt (MdePkg) right now, or should we wait until Leif's & Hao's work on the "wildcard path association" feature (for Maintainers.txt) completes? > I have reviewed this patch to the BaseLib.h. The new LA57 bit > added to IA32_CR4 matches the documentation in the white paper > referenced in the series. > > Reviewed-by: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> Thanks! Laszlo > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 10:17 AM >> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Dong, Eric >> <eric.d...@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com> >> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>; Gao, Liming >> <liming....@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D >> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] >> MdePkg/BaseLib.h: Update IA32_CR4 structure for 5-level >> paging >> >> Ray, Eric, >> >> (+Liming, +Mike, +Leif) >> >> On 07/09/19 03:04, Dong, Eric wrote: >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Dong <eric.d...@intel.com> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ni, Ray >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 2:54 PM >>>> To: devel@edk2.groups.io >>>> Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek >>>> <ler...@redhat.com> >>>> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] MdePkg/BaseLib.h: Update >> IA32_CR4 structure >>>> for 5-level paging >>>> >>>> 5-level paging is documented in white paper: >>>> >> https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/2b >> /80/5- >>>> level_paging_white_paper.pdf >>>> >>>> Commit f8113e25001e715390127f23e2197252cbd6d1a2 >>>> changed Cpuid.h already. >>>> >>>> This patch updates IA32_CR4 structure to include LA57 >> field. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Ni <ray...@intel.com> >>>> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.d...@intel.com> >>>> Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> MdePkg/Include/Library/BaseLib.h | 3 ++- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/Library/BaseLib.h >>>> b/MdePkg/Include/Library/BaseLib.h >>>> index ebd7dd274c..a22bfc9fad 100644 >>>> --- a/MdePkg/Include/Library/BaseLib.h >>>> +++ b/MdePkg/Include/Library/BaseLib.h >>>> @@ -5324,7 +5324,8 @@ typedef union { >>>> UINT32 OSXMMEXCPT:1; ///< Operating System >> Support for >>>> ///< Unmasked SIMD >> Floating Point >>>> ///< Exceptions. >>>> - UINT32 Reserved_0:2; ///< Reserved. >>>> + UINT32 Reserved_2:1; ///< Reserved. >>>> + UINT32 LA57:1; ///< Linear Address >> 57bit. >>>> UINT32 VMXE:1; ///< VMX Enable >>>> UINT32 Reserved_1:18; ///< Reserved. >>>> } Bits; >> >> I'm sorry but you will have to revert this patch series >> immediately. >> None of the MdePkg maintainers have approved this patch - >> - commit 7c5010c7f88b. >> >> In the first place, Mike and Liming were never CC'd on >> the patch, so they may not have noticed it, even. >> >> The situation is very similar to the recent SM3 crypto >> series that I had to revert myself. An MdePkg patch was >> pushed without package owner review. >> >> Can you guys please revert this series immediately, >> without me having to do it? >> >> >> If we think that MdePkg should have more "M" folks, in >> order to distribute the review load better, then we >> should address that problem first. Ignoring rules just >> because that's more convenient is not acceptable. >> >> Thanks, >> Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43602): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/43602 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32295048/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-