Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752624AbcCGLFy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 06:05:54 -0500
Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176]:36618 "EHLO
	mail-io0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752325AbcCGLFr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 06:05:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160307110243.GB27675@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1455712566-16727-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
	<1455712566-16727-10-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
	<CAKv+Gu-ZHz9Z6YyusLZdKJA4QPJ8fkxVWaA=EQvTM5iSLM7c1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160307110243.GB27675@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:05:46 +0700
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu9XQgrztMm+3dVXCM9KwMP14iY=gH8h6H4ezR94HmSBAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] efi/arm64: Check for h/w support before booting a
 >4 KB granule kernel
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 972
Lines: 28

On 7 March 2016 at 18:02, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar, at 04:35:32AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> This patch turned up in -next with 'granule' replaced with 'granular',
>> both in the commit log and in the patch itself. The term 'granule' is
>> part of the idiom used by the ARM Architecture Reference Manual, and
>> so changing it silently to 'granular' is not entirely appropriate here
>> (although harmless in practice, obviously). In general, I would
>> appreciate it if in the future, such changes were not made silently
>> somewhere in the merge pipeline.
>
> Sorry about this Ard. I'll make sure this doesn't happen again in
> future.
>

Thanks

> Ingo, is there any chance we can fixup this patch in-place and revert
> back to the original wording before it gets to Linus' during the merge
> window?

To be honest, I don't care deeply about the commit log, as long as the
code changes are reverted.

Thanks,
Ard.