linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] SFI: Simple Firmware Interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:14:16 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, sfi-devel@...plefirmware.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] SFI: Simple Firmware Interface - v3


> Ok, this iteration is even nicer.

Thank you, Ingo, both for the thoughtful review,
and your kind words.

>   Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> A patch technical request/suggestion. I guess you'd like to keep 
> these bits in the ACPI tree, so that you can test it and merge it 
> with ongoing ACPI changes, right?
> 
> That would be fine to me for all the arch/x86/ touching patches, 
> except for this one:
> 
>  [PATCH 05/11] ACPI, x86: expose some IO-APIC routines when CONFIG_ACPI=n
> 
> I'd like to pick this one up into tip:x86/apic, because there's 
> ongoing work in this area. (also, by the looks of it, i'd not be 
> surprised if this patch needed some testing. This is fragile code 
> with quirky Kconfig dependencies.)
> 
> I can create a standalone topic for this (based on .31-rc6), 
> containing this single commit, which you could pull into the ACPI 
> tree? That way we both can have this commit and nobody is held up, 
> and both trees can be pushed to Linus in the .32 merge window, 
> independently of each other.

Sure.

Go ahead and pull that patch onto an 2.6.31-rc8 based branch from here:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-sfi-2.6.git for-ingo

As the previous patches did not depend on it, I simply rebased that
one to rc8 and moved the other patches after it.

Yes, I use a single git database for ACPI and SFI so they can
share things such as this patch, but rather than make SFI a
branch in the kernel.org ACPI tree, it has its own tree,
since most of SFI is independent of ACPI.

thanks,
-Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/