On Wed, 11 Feb, at 06:12:59PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Good point. Actually, I don't really see the need for patch #1, even > if I agree that it would have been better to write it like you have in > the first place. > But leaving the dmi_len as u16 is clearly a bug on my part, so that > should be fixed. > > @Matt: any thoughts?
Ivan, I'd prefer it if you move PATCH 1 to be PATCH 3, i.e. make the urgent changes at the beginning of the series and the cleanups at the end. That nicely sidesteps the issue of having to backport a cleanup patch as a dependency for a real bug fix. -- 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
