linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h GUID additions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:27:05 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] efi: Make checkpatch complain less about efi.h
 GUID additions


* Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Feb, at 11:50:35AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > Hm, so the GUIDs are line-broken in the same fashion in the spec, after the third 
> > parameter?
>  
> Yep, they are.
> 
> > That's a strong reason indeed - and then the changelog and title should say that: 
> > 're-format GUID tables to follow the format of the UEFI spec'. That it also 
> > pacifies checkpatch is a side effect.
> 
> I think that's a fair change.
> 
> Peter could you take a look at updating the changelog in a v2? If not,
> I'll do it.

Note that I applied most of your patches to tip:efi/core, which I've just pushed 
out. You might want to base v2 on that.

Thanks,

	Ingo