Re: [Patch 1/3] firmware: dmi_scan: rename dmi_table to dmi_decode_table

[Ivan.khoronzhuk]

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
> > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=next
> >
> > 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:
> > http://jdelvare.nerim.net/devel/linux-3/jdelvare-dmi/
> >
> > 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.

--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/