Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:45:44 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: fupan.li@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fupanli@gmail.com,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@canonical.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 ~ 3.14] efi: fix the efi 32bit boot failed problem
Message-ID: <20150730164544.GL2725@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1438078879-24705-1-git-send-email-fupan.li@windriver.com>
 <20150730150428.GJ2725@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20150730163102.GA19943@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150730163102.GA19943@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 996
Lines: 26

On Thu, 30 Jul, at 09:31:02AM, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> Why isn't this an issue in newer kernel releases?  Did this already get
> fixed by some other patch?  If so, why can't we just take that patch?
> If not, why not?
 
The commit 35d5134b7d5a ("x86/efi: Correct EFI boot stub use of
code32_start") only exists in the stable trees in that form because
there was quite a lot of churn in that area in Linus tree that didn't
get backported.

So the code in Linus' tree never looked like the code in the stable does
right now.

> I _REALLY_ don't like taking patches that are not already in Linus's
> tree, as it almost always turns out to be the wrong solution.

Yeah, I think this issue verifies that.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/