Yes, justification in bugzilla and README, please. I suggestion you send a different email to ask the different topic - not distract people.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Boeuf, Sebastien <sebastien.bo...@intel.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:03 PM > To: kra...@redhat.com; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>; > devel@edk2.groups.io > Cc: Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/3] CloudHv: Rely on PVH boot specification > > On Wed, 2022-02-23 at 13:11 +0000, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > If you want to support PVH-only, that means you *defeature* the > > CloudHv in *edk2-stable202202* tag according to > > https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-Release- > Planning > > . > > I hope that is stated clearly, with justification why we choose PVH- > > only. Something like: "In edk2-stable202202, CloudHv supported xxx. > > In edk2-stable202205 or future, CloudHv for non-TDX will only support > > PVH, because xxxxxx. The CloudFv for TDX will continue support xxx." > > An ASCII table is preferred to clarify the combination. > > Sounds good. So all the justification should be part of the Bugzilla > issue, right? > > BTW, completely different topic, but wouldn't it be easier to use > Github for tracking issues? I mean especially since it's already used > for CI and Wiki. > > > > > If possible, please create a similar README under > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/OvmfPkg/CloudHv to > > record such info. (configuration, feature, supported v.s. > > unsupported, URL link, how to build, how to launch, etc) > > Of course :) > > > > > > > FYI: The readme in Microvm is a good example - > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/OvmfPkg/Microvm/README. > > > > Thank you > > Yao Jiewen > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Boeuf, Sebastien <sebastien.bo...@intel.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 8:20 PM > > > To: kra...@redhat.com; devel@edk2.groups.io > > > Cc: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>; Justen, Jordan L > > > <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/3] CloudHv: Rely on PVH boot > > > specification > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-02-23 at 13:02 +0100, kra...@redhat.com wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > Well that's a good question. If we expect the same target > > > > > (CloudHv) > > > > > to > > > > > support both TDX and non-TDX, that means the generated TDVF > > > > > will be > > > > > a > > > > > PVH ELF binary, which will require some special handling from > > > > > Cloud > > > > > Hypervisor. > > > > > Having two separate targets would simplify things a lot. What's > > > > > the > > > > > plan for QEMU? Will the same OVMF target cover both use cases? > > > > > > > > Yes, there will be a single binary supporting both tdx and non- > > > > tdx, > > > > some > > > > configs add sev to the mix. Doing the same for cloudhv shouldn't > > > > be > > > > much > > > > of a problem I think. > > > > > > > > In tdx mode the firmware uses the tdhob for memory detection, in > > > > non- > > > > tdx > > > > mode qemu fw_cfg is used instead. The cloudhv build could switch > > > > between tdhob and pvhinfo in a simliar way. > > > > > > Sounds good :) > > > > > > > > > > > take care, > > > > Gerd > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#86909): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/86909 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/89319389/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
