[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326707367.3629.26.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:49:27 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Huang Ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86, efi: Calling __pa() with an ioremap()ed
address is invalid"
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 10:31 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org> wrote:
>
> > Ping?
>
> Would be nice to have testing from Keith as your fix looks more
> attractive than the plain revert.
>
> I could queue up the fix blindly and do a double revert if it
> breaks, but i already strongly depleted my problematic-tree
> quota for this cycle, so i'd rather have a nice Tested-by tag
> from Keith ... ;-)
Sorry, I should have been more verbose here. What I was really asking
was whether Keith has had chance to test this patch. A Tested-by tag is
essential - I really don't want to be responsible for a problematic
tree ;-)
> Failing that i guess we'll have to do the revert, and re-try the
> original commit with your fix merged into it.
The revert is already in Linus' tree as e1ad783b12ec "Revert "x86, efi:
Calling __pa() with an ioremap()ed address is invalid", so at least
we've got some time to get this patch right.
--
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists