linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/13] efi/arm64: Check for h/w support before booting a >4 KB granule kernel

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu9XQgrztMm+3dVXCM9KwMP14iY=gH8h6H4ezR94HmSBAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:05:46 +0700
From:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] efi/arm64: Check for h/w support before booting a
 >4 KB granule kernel

On 7 March 2016 at 18:02, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar, at 04:35:32AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> This patch turned up in -next with 'granule' replaced with 'granular',
>> both in the commit log and in the patch itself. The term 'granule' is
>> part of the idiom used by the ARM Architecture Reference Manual, and
>> so changing it silently to 'granular' is not entirely appropriate here
>> (although harmless in practice, obviously). In general, I would
>> appreciate it if in the future, such changes were not made silently
>> somewhere in the merge pipeline.
>
> Sorry about this Ard. I'll make sure this doesn't happen again in
> future.
>

Thanks

> Ingo, is there any chance we can fixup this patch in-place and revert
> back to the original wording before it gets to Linus' during the merge
> window?

To be honest, I don't care deeply about the commit log, as long as the
code changes are reverted.

Thanks,
Ard.