Will do. There is a related discussion about CI and containers here: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/discussions/2614#discussioncomment-2595253 as well as in the meeting recording attached in that

This change adds the build macros for edk2 Redfish schema C to JSON drivers and libraries. These macros are controlled by the edk2 build tool according to the x-uefi language used in the UNI

Thanks for the explanation. Please put information like this in the commit logs, rather than assuming it will obvious to everyone without providing any background. For these changes, Acked-by: Ard

Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...>

Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...>

Hi Liming, I just add ```-D DEBUG_FILE_PATH=gEfiCallerBaseName``` to BuildOptions Thanks Guomin

Pushed as fe223fb30f74..c06b98a171be Thanks,

Pushed as 170f455d1b1b..fe223fb30f74 Thanks all,

Hi, Measurement will only record hashes for verification later on. It will not prevent running possibly buggy/compromised code. So, no matter what the order is, you'll figure the system

PR: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/2795 Explicity disable the stack protection with -fno-stack-protection for builds using GCC on AARCH64. The gcc on Ubuntu enables

Explicity disable the stack protection with -fno-stack-protection for builds using GCC on AARCH64. The gcc on Ubuntu enables -fstack-protector-strong by default starting with Ubuntu 21.10. GenFw

Hi Ard, Thanks for your time in reviewing this patch series. Please find my response inline.

Hi Ard, Please find my response inline.

For the series, Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...>

Why is this necessary? By doing this, you will lose the ability to boot an OS that implements ACPI 6.2 but not ACPI 6.4, and so this should only be done if you are actually relying on a feature that

A valid point. GCC 4.8 accepts -fno-stack-protector. For IA32 and X64 this option is set in GCC48_$ARCH_CC_FLAGS. Setting it for AARCH64 starting with GCC4.8 would be more consistent than setting it

Could you elaborate? Why does the former justify/imply the latter?

^^^ this for example. The idea is to (a) switch linux CI builds from vm images to container images, and (b) use our own, custom container images. This allows to roll the dependencies needed for CI

Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <Jiewen.yao@...>

Thanks Min. Would you please add some comment in the APRIORI section, to explain why the order is in this way? It also reminds people that the order should not be changed. With comment added,