Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/4] tools: Enable OVMF build by default

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:53:39PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 12:38 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:37:14AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 11:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > >>> On 15.10.13 at 18:40, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > The issues with non-GCC4.4 builds seem to have been resolved.
> > > > 
> > > > So in patch 0/4 you say that you have a private working tree
> > > > (which makes me assume that xenbits.xen.org/ovmf.git isn't
> > > > suitable), and the series doesn't seem to do anything towards
> > > > updating xenbits.xen.org/ovmf.git. How is all this fitting
> > > > together? Will everyone but you now end up with a broken
> > > > build?
> > > 
> > > I took
> > >         Working changeset that can be sticked in Config.mk is:
> > >         8833370303d3bf3153760ee42760ef1b9b5c562
> > > from the 0th email to mean that the committer could/should make this
> > > change at the same time as committing (to be fair, I also discussed this
> > > with Wei IRL before he sent the series, so I had some context).
> > > 
> > > I can cope with that, although I'd have preferred that to be an actual
> > > patch in the series.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry I misunderstood you. I can resend this series with change to
> > Config.mk.
> 
> Unless other feedback has lead to other changes then appending a "5/4"
> patch to this version is fine with me.
> 

No, not really.

The only concerns I've got so far are:

* Jan on the change in Makefile
* David on the introductory email

I presume we can improve Makefile with a later patch. I will reply to
David directly. So there is no new code added.

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel