Hi Matt,
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:35:30 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr, at 03:57:01PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:Good question, we need to agree on a strategy.
The "dmi_table" function looks like data instance, but it does DMILooks good to me.
table decode. This patch renames it to "dmi_decode_table" name as
more appropriate. That allows us to use "dmi_table" name for correct
purposes.
Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Jean, do you want me to pick this patch up or are you going to?
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.
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
no idea if git would be able to merge them properly, as the fix
above changed the context even more.
3* The 3 new patches from Ivan which I am reviewing now, which are not
applied in any public tree AFAIK.
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.
Thanks,