Message-ID: <5530F6C7.6060306@globallogic.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:04:23 +0300
From: "Ivan.khoronzhuk" <ivan.khoronzhuk@globallogic.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
CC: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        matt.fleming@intel.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
        grant.likely@linaro.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, mikew@google.com,
        dmidecode-devel@nongnu.org, leif.lindholm@linaro.org,
        msalter@redhat.com, roy.franz@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/3] firmware: dmi_scan: rename dmi_table to dmi_decode_table
References: <1427979423-22767-1-git-send-email-ivan.khoronzhuk@globallogic.com>	<1427979423-22767-2-git-send-email-ivan.khoronzhuk@globallogic.com>	<20150415143530.GF4804@codeblueprint.co.uk>	<20150416103511.55927ccc@endymion.delvare>	<553018BB.1080903@globallogic.com> <20150417105454.1c52f430@endymion.delvare> <5530DC41.3050700@globallogic.com>
In-Reply-To: <5530DC41.3050700@globallogic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3615
Lines: 94

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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/