On 09/09/19 21:15, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > ... I've done some testing too. Applying the QEMU patch on top of > 89ea03a7dc83, my plan was: > > - do not change OVMF, just see if it continues booting with the QEMU > patch > > - then negotiate bit#1 too, in step (1a) -- this is when I'd expect (3a) > to break. > > Unfortunately, the result is worse than that; even without negotiating > bit#1 (i.e. in the baseline test), the firmware crashes (reboots) in > step (3a). I've checked "info mtree", and all occurences of > "smbase-blackhole" and "smbase-blackhole" are marked [disabled]. I'm not > sure what's wrong with the baseline test (i.e. without negotiating > bit#1). If I drop the patch (build QEMU at 89ea03a7dc83), then things > work fine.
Sorry, there's a typo above: I pasted "smbase-blackhole" twice. The second instance was meant to be "smbase-window". I checked all instances of both regions in the info mtree output, I just fumbled the pasting. Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47047): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/47047 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/33154821/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
