[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191014202111.GP15552@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:21:11 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest
acceptable address
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:14:19PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Your spelling of "EFI" is like a random number generator in this
> paragraph: "Efi", "efi" and "EFI". Can you please be more careful when
> writing your commit messages? They're not some random text you hurriedly
> jot down before sending the patch but a most important description of
> why a change is being done.
Was there a section in the patch submission documentation to point out
when people send patches with all the possible twists for an acronym?
This is giving me constantly gray hairs with TPM patches.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists