Hi Matt, On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:35:30 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 02 Apr, at 03:57:01PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: > > The "dmi_table" function looks like data instance, but it does DMI > > table decode. This patch renames it to "dmi_decode_table" name as > > more appropriate. That allows us to use "dmi_table" name for correct > > purposes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 10 +++++----- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Looks good to me. > > Jean, do you want me to pick this patch up or are you going to? Good question, we need to agree on a strategy. There are 3 patch sets to consider here. 1* My patch fixing the UUID ordering bug. It must go in first and immediately, as it fixes a regression and will have to be backported to stable branches. 2* 2 older patches from Ivan which are currently in your efi-next tree if I'm not mistaken. Both were based on an old tree so they do not apply cleanly on kernel v4.0, I had to fix them up manually. I have no idea if git would be able to merge them properly, as the fix above changed the context even more. 3* The 3 new patches from Ivan which I am reviewing now, which are not applied in any public tree AFAIK. I don't really care who picks these patches up and sends them to Linus, but I think they should all follow the same route so that Linus has as little merge work to do as possible. So either you pick them all, or I do. If I do, you'll have to drop the 2 patches you have in efi-next. Again I'm fine either way, so please let me know what makes your life easier and let's do that. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
