On 07/31/2015 08:21 PM, Luis Henriques wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 01:05:19PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul, at 09:22:33AM, fupan wrote:
Hi, Matt
Will you take care of this patch or I send a V2?
Could you please send a V2 with the changes to the commit message that I
On 07/31/2015 08:05 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul, at 09:22:33AM, fupan wrote:
Hi, Matt
Will you take care of this patch or I send a V2?
Could you please send a V2 with the changes to the commit message that I
suggested previously? Thanks!
NP!
Thanks!
Fupan
--
To unsubscribe
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 01:05:19PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul, at 09:22:33AM, fupan wrote:
Hi, Matt
Will you take care of this patch or I send a V2?
Could you please send a V2 with the changes to the commit message that I
suggested previously? Thanks!
I'm replying to
On Fri, 31 Jul, at 09:22:33AM, fupan wrote:
Hi, Matt
Will you take care of this patch or I send a V2?
Could you please send a V2 with the changes to the commit message that I
suggested previously? Thanks!
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this
(Add linux-efi, Luis and Greg)
On Tue, 28 Jul, at 06:21:19PM, fupan...@windriver.com wrote:
From: fli fupan...@windriver.com
The commit 35d5134b7d5a55e269c953096224248b9f6f72c2
Author: Matt Fleming m...@console-pimps.org
Date: Tue Apr 8 13:14:00 2014 +0100
x86/efi: Correct EFI boot
On 07/31/2015 12:59 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 05:45:44PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul, at 09:31:02AM, Greg KH wrote:
Why isn't this an issue in newer kernel releases? Did this already get
fixed by some other patch? If so, why can't we just take that patch?
If
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 04:04:28PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
(Add linux-efi, Luis and Greg)
On Tue, 28 Jul, at 06:21:19PM, fupan...@windriver.com wrote:
From: fli fupan...@windriver.com
The commit 35d5134b7d5a55e269c953096224248b9f6f72c2
Author: Matt Fleming m...@console-pimps.org
On Thu, 30 Jul, at 09:31:02AM, Greg KH wrote:
Why isn't this an issue in newer kernel releases? Did this already get
fixed by some other patch? If so, why can't we just take that patch?
If not, why not?
The commit 35d5134b7d5a (x86/efi: Correct EFI boot stub use of
code32_start) only
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 05:45:44PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul, at 09:31:02AM, Greg KH wrote:
Why isn't this an issue in newer kernel releases? Did this already get
fixed by some other patch? If so, why can't we just take that patch?
If not, why not?
The commit
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:21:19PM +0800, fupan...@windriver.com wrote:
From: fli fupan...@windriver.com
The commit 35d5134b7d5a55e269c953096224248b9f6f72c2
Author: Matt Fleming m...@console-pimps.org
Date: Tue Apr 8 13:14:00 2014 +0100
x86/efi: Correct EFI boot stub use of
From: fli fupan...@windriver.com
The commit 35d5134b7d5a55e269c953096224248b9f6f72c2
Author: Matt Fleming m...@console-pimps.org
Date: Tue Apr 8 13:14:00 2014 +0100
x86/efi: Correct EFI boot stub use of code32_start
imported a bug, which should use the label's address instead
of the value
11 matches
Mail list logo
