Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "firmware: dmi_scan: Use lowercase letters for UUID"
References: <20181205211351.5309-1-peter@korsgaard.com>
        <1544086444.5492.1.camel@suse.com> <87a7ljyppx.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk>
        <1544092087.5492.3.camel@suse.com> <878t1264lf.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk>
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:06:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <878t1264lf.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> (Peter Korsgaard's message of
        "Thu, 06 Dec 2018 16:46:04 +0100")
Message-ID: <87efaotgi1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> writes:

Hi Jean,

 >> Look, you can imagine that I was perfectly aware of what I was doing
 >> when I made that change, and that I pondered the decision carefully at
 >> that time. And my decision was that the change should be made. As far
 >> as I'm concerned, this ship has sailed already, sorry.

 > Sorry, what is the perceived risk of reverting this change? Just the
 > minor inconsistency between the dmidecode and sysfs output? As stated
 > above, the RFC requires conforming parsers to handle upper case as well.

I would appreciate if you could explain what risk you see from reverting
this change?

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard