Message-ID: <1479826691.1942.11.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime
 services
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 06:58:11 -0800
In-Reply-To: <27422.1479824220@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <20161122102018.GB1552@wunner.de>
         <20161117123731.GA11573@wunner.de>
         <147977469914.6360.17194649697208113702.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
         <27422.1479824220@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 375
Lines: 11

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 14:17 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> 
> > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as
> > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e.
> > 
> > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary boot services")
> 
> In this case, checkpatch is wrong.

Why do you think so?