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

https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D3525 After PciSegmentLib using Dynamic PCD for Pcie base address such long delay found in FSP. The root cause is some of the PCD service PPIs not

Would you please tell us how many TPM2 chip you have tested? I think we need consider the compatibility of exiting TPM2 chips, to make sure the code still work. Thank you Yao Jiewen

Some feedback: 1) I think it is OK to add Tpm2PcrReadForActiveBank() API. But I feel we will add too many noise to dump Tpm2PcrReadForActiveBank() in the code everytime. I am not sure why it is

Hi Rodrigo I don't understand the problem statement. This code has been there for long time. What is changed recently ? Thank you Yao Jiewen

It seems there are 3 patches sent from Marvin Häuser and I suppose they're in one patch-set, right? Please follow the link below to send out patch-set for

https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3500 Use efi_debugging.py Python Classes to implement EFI gdb commands: (gdb) help efi Commands for debugging EFI. efi <cmd> List of efi