On 7/22/19 6:51 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 07/19/19 18:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> Hi Laszlo, >> >> On 7/18/19 9:35 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 7/18/19 8:38 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>>> On 07/18/19 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>>>> On 07/18/19 12:48, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>>>> To avoid incoherent states when the machine resets (see but report >> [...]>>> (3) Using OVMF IA32X64 (including the edk2 SMM stack), I've >>>>> regression-tested this patch, on top of v4.1.0-rc1, with KVM. As follows: >>>>> >>>>> (3a) Normal reboot from the UEFI shell ("reset -c" command) >>>>> >>>>> (3b) Normal reboot from the Linux guest prompt ("reboot" command) >>>>> >>>>> (3c1) Reset as part of ACPI S3 suspend/resume >>>>> (3c2) then use "efibootmgr -n / -N" to write to pflash (by virtue of >>>>> setting / deleting the standardized BootNext UEFI variable) >>>>> >>>>> (3d1) Boot to setup TUI with SB enabled >>>>> (3d2) erase Platform Key in setup TUI (disables SB) >>>>> (3d3) reboot from within setup TUI >>>>> (3d4) proceed to UEFI shell >>>>> (3d5) enable SB with EnrollDefaultKeys.efi >>>>> (3d6) reboot from UEFI shell >>>>> (3d7) proceeed to Linux guest >>>>> (3d8) verify SB enablement (dmesg, "mokutil --sb-state") >>>>> >>>>> (As an added exercise, step (3d4) triggered an "FTW" (fault tolerant >>>>> write) "reclaim" (basically a defragmentation of the journaled >>>>> "filesystem" that the firmware keeps in the flash, as a logical "middle >>>>> layer"), and that worked fine too.) >>>>> >>>>> Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (4) I plan to provide R-t-b in the evening from aarch64 KVM too, using >>>>> the edk2 ArmVirtQemu firmware. Only the first two steps from (3) will be >>>>> covered (no ACPI S3, no SB). >>>> >>>> Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >> >> Patchwork doesn't recognize your R-t-b tag: >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1133671/ >> >> Should I change it for a Tested-by, or add as it? > > Please pick it up manually, as it is, if that's possible. > > I prefer to dedicate "Tested-by" to cases where my before-after > comparison highlights a difference (i.e., bug disappears, or feature > appears). I dedicate "R-t-b" to cases where nothing observable changes > (in accordance with my expectation).
OK, thanks for your explanation! > > Thanks! > Laszlo > >>> Thank you a lot again for all your testing, I also noted your steps and >>> will try to automate them.