Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daude <philmd@...>

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daude <philmd@...>

Right, I can do that, just many of the patches were actually meant to be single and independent. I believe there were two series that somehow did not get indexed by the command. I just forced

Reviewed-by: Ray Ni <ray.ni@...>

Good day Hao, Sorry for the confusion, and you are (rightfully!) not alone. :( I'll quote myself from a different patch: [...] for some reason, none of the other patch series had indices

Sorry Marvin Häuser, Could you help to confirm that below 9 MdeModulePkg related patches are either: * All independent patches * Belong to a patch series that includes all these 9 MdeModulePkg

The legacy codebase allowed SMM images to be registered for profiling from DXE. Support for this has been dropped entirely, so remove the remaining handlers. Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@...> Cc:

Fix the non-ascii character in UniversalPayloadEntry.c Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@...> Cc: Maurice Ma <maurice.ma@...> Cc: Benjamin You <benjamin.you@...> Signed-off-by: DunTan

Sorry Zhichao and Ray, could you please help to check if you have comments for this patch. Thanks in advance. Hello Caden Kline, could you help to provide the information on what kind of unit test

Hey Ray, clang-tidy gave me a hand. :) "Suspicious usage of 'sizeof(K)'; did you mean 'K'? clang-tidy(bugprone-sizeof-expression)" I set it up as follows (this is *not* sophisticated, just added

Hey Jiewen, Good point, sure. Will probably add ASSERTs as well, if that is fine with you. Best regards, Marvin

Hey Jiewen, Right, I meant to ask about this and forgot (sorry, I sent out a bit less than 30 patches yesterday :) ). Why do we record and potentially defer the loading of images that are distrusted

Can we define 3 and 4 to be "reserved and do not use", instead of removed ? -#define SMRAM_PROFILE_COMMAND_REGISTER_IMAGE 0x3 -#define SMRAM_PROFILE_COMMAND_UNREGISTER_IMAGE

Good day, I just woke up to this mess, yes. I actually did follow that guide, just around 3 years ago I believe, so let me check where things went wrong since then... The patch you quoted was a

Reviewed-by: Ray Ni <ray.ni@...> +Star and Jiewen for confirmation.

It's so lucky that no code calls AllocatePool so the bug didn't cause real issues. (I tried to remove AllocatePool() and build still passed.) Thanks for catching the bug. Reviewed-by: Ray Ni

Hi Marvin With this patch, the path "Action == EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_AUTH_SIG_FOUND" no longer exists. Do you think we should remove EFI_IMAGE_EXECUTION_AUTH_SIG_FOUND as well? Thank you Yao