[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Patch 1/3] firmware: dmi_scan: rename dmi_table to dmi_decode_table
Hi Jean,

On 17.04.15 13:11, Ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
> On 17.04.15 11:54, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> Hi Ivan,
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:16:59 +0300, Ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
>>> On 16.04.15 11:35, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:35:30 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>>>>> Jean, do you want me to pick this patch up or are you going to?
>>>> Good question, we need to agree on a strategy.
>>>> There are 3 patch sets to consider here.
>>>> 1* My patch fixing the UUID ordering bug. It must go in first and
>>>> immediately, as it fixes a regression and will have to be
>>>> backported
>>>> to stable branches.
>>> ||
>>> V
>>>> 2* 2 older patches from Ivan which are currently in your efi-next tree
>>>> if I'm not mistaken. Both were based on an old tree so they do
>>>> not
>>>> apply cleanly on kernel v4.0, I had to fix them up manually. I
>>>> have
>>> They are in master tree already.
>>>> no idea if git would be able to merge them properly, as the fix
>>>> above changed the context even more.
>>> Current efi-next already merged, so you should base your patches on
>>> top of last changes.
>> Correct. I looked at the result and the merge looks correct. I'll turn
>> my objections into fixup patches to apply on top, where still worth it.
>> In particular I'll start with the ".x" revert, as it will make
>> backporting the bug fix easier.
>>>> 3* The 3 new patches from Ivan which I am reviewing now, which are not
>>>> applied in any public tree AFAIK.
>>> It shouldn't happen,
>>> I've been verifying just now once again.
>>> They are applied on top of linux_next cleanly.
>>> Equal as on efi/next.
>> I can't see them at
>> To clarify: I do not claim that they can't be applied, I'm only saying
>> they're not there yet (which is OK as they were still pending my
>> review.) They do apply just fine, no problem with this.
>>>> I don't really care who picks these patches up and sends them to
>>>> Linus,
>>>> but I think they should all follow the same route so that Linus has as
>>>> little merge work to do as possible. So either you pick them all, or I
>>>> do. If I do, you'll have to drop the 2 patches you have in efi-next.
>>>> Again I'm fine either way, so please let me know what makes your life
>>>> easier and let's do that.
>>> I'm going to base my series
>>> "firmware: dmi_scan: add SBMIOS entry point and DMI tables"
>>> on top of linux next unless you have already your tree to pick up
>>> changes.
>>> Please let me know, if you have one.
>> I have no formal tree yet, but my current patch set can be seen at:
>> First 2 patches from you are already upstream. You should rebase your
>> updated patch series on top of upstream + patches 03 and 04, as they
>> will go in first.
>> Thanks,
> Not sure that's a good idea to base on patches that doesn't path any
> review and
> no one cannot apply. At least it be good you send them that I can
> point on them in
> commit message.

Don't know why your patches don't apply on top of linux next.
They looks w/o conflicts. I've applied them by hand. To avoid mess,
could you
please send them in order I can refer on them in my commit message.

Ivan Khoronzhuk

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-17 14:21    [W:0.093 / U:1.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site