03.03.2016 07:13, David Michael пишет:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> Two nitpicks otherwise looks good. Thanks!
>
> Thanks for reviewing these again. I agree with your suggestions, but
> do they warrant another updated patch, or can those changes just be
> squashed
08.03.2016 06:40, Michael Chang пишет:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 05:01:33PM -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:29:14AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>> 08.03.2016 00:20, Peter Jones пишет:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>> How
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 10:07:58PM +, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> Le lun. 7 mars 2016 23:01, Peter Jones a écrit :
>
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:29:14AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > > 08.03.2016 00:20, Peter Jones пишет:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, An
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 05:01:33PM -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:29:14AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > 08.03.2016 00:20, Peter Jones пишет:
> > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> How big part of it is related to secure bo
On Mon, 07 Mar, at 04:20:00PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> >
> > > How big part of it is related to secure boot? Just
> > > changing Linux boot protocol doesn't need FSF involvement. Accepting
> > > secure
> >
> > Patches currently use
Le lun. 7 mars 2016 23:01, Peter Jones a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:29:14AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > 08.03.2016 00:20, Peter Jones пишет:
> > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> How big part of it is related to secure boot? Just
>
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:29:14AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 08.03.2016 00:20, Peter Jones пишет:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> >>
> >>> How big part of it is related to secure boot? Just
> >>> changing Linux boot protocol doesn't need FSF involvemen
Le lun. 7 mars 2016 22:14, Peter Jones a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:40:58PM +, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
> wrote:
> > Le lun. 7 mars 2016 21:33, Andrei Borzenkov a
> écrit :
> >
> > > 07.03.2016 22:57, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
> > > >>
> > > > I would also appre
08.03.2016 00:20, Peter Jones пишет:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>
>>> How big part of it is related to secure boot? Just
>>> changing Linux boot protocol doesn't need FSF involvement. Accepting secure
>>
>> Patches currently use EFI stub to launch kernel bu
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:08:22AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 08.03.2016 00:03, Peter Jones пишет:
>
> > I'm curious as to why you think "linux16" doesn't work for Linux,
> > though. We use it 100% of the time in Fedora and RHEL, and upstream x86
> > kernel maintainers have expressed a pref
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
> > How big part of it is related to secure boot? Just
> > changing Linux boot protocol doesn't need FSF involvement. Accepting secure
>
> Patches currently use EFI stub to launch kernel but I think this is done
> simply to make
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:40:58PM +, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> Le lun. 7 mars 2016 21:33, Andrei Borzenkov a écrit :
>
> > 07.03.2016 22:57, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
> > >>
> > > I would also appreciate if distros would tell which patches they
> > would
> > >
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:33:52PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 07.03.2016 22:57, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
> >>
> > I would also appreciate if distros would tell which patches they would
> > carry if 2.02 was released as it is now. If some patches are in more
> >> than 1
> >
Le lun. 7 mars 2016 22:03, Peter Jones a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 07:57:21PM +, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
> wrote:
> > > > > Well, I have a bunch of patches that need to be clean up (or even
> > > > > re-examined), and I've also got the secure-boot branch here:
> > > > >
> > > >
08.03.2016 00:03, Peter Jones пишет:
> I'm curious as to why you think "linux16" doesn't work for Linux,
> though. We use it 100% of the time in Fedora and RHEL, and upstream x86
> kernel maintainers have expressed a preference for it. Using "linux"
> instead seems to break much more, for exampl
Le lun. 7 mars 2016 21:57, Andrei Borzenkov a écrit :
> 07.03.2016 23:40, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
> > Le lun. 7 mars 2016 21:33, Andrei Borzenkov a
> écrit :
> >
> >> 07.03.2016 22:57, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
>
> >>> I would also appreciate if distros would tel
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 07:57:21PM +, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> > > > Well, I have a bunch of patches that need to be clean up (or even
> > > > re-examined), and I've also got the secure-boot branch here:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/vathpela/grub2-fedora/tree/sb
> > > >
> >
07.03.2016 23:40, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
> Le lun. 7 mars 2016 21:33, Andrei Borzenkov a écrit :
>
>> 07.03.2016 22:57, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
>>> I would also appreciate if distros would tell which patches they
>> would
>>> carry if 2.02 was released as i
Le lun. 7 mars 2016 14:35, Daniel Kiper a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Does anybody know why only multiboot2 multiboot_mmap_entry struct
> has packed attribute? Is it by design or by mistake? I think that
> we should use packed attribute for every multiboot2 protocol related
> struct. If not then we should
Le lun. 7 mars 2016 21:33, Andrei Borzenkov a écrit :
> 07.03.2016 22:57, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
> >>
> > I would also appreciate if distros would tell which patches they
> would
> > carry if 2.02 was released as it is now. If some patches are in more
> >> than 1
> > dis
- strip priority bits in received packets. We do not control them and need
to compare VLAN number only, which takes just 12 bits.
- store VLAN number and priority bits separately in interface structure.
- fix VLAN comparison when searching for matching interface. We need to
continiue, not bre
07.03.2016 22:57, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
>>
> I would also appreciate if distros would tell which patches they would
> carry if 2.02 was released as it is now. If some patches are in more
>> than 1
> distro we probably need to look into including them.
Well, I ha
Le lun. 7 mars 2016 20:00, Peter Jones a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 11:38:00AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > 04.03.2016 23:06, Peter Jones пишет:
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:01:03PM +, Vladimir 'phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
> > >> Hello, all. I went through the list of bugs a
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 11:38:00AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 04.03.2016 23:06, Peter Jones пишет:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:01:03PM +, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
> > wrote:
> >> Hello, all. I went through the list of bugs and created a shortlist of bugs
> >> that need to be look
Hi,
Does anybody know why only multiboot2 multiboot_mmap_entry struct
has packed attribute? Is it by design or by mistake? I think that
we should use packed attribute for every multiboot2 protocol related
struct. If not then we should probably remove this attribute from
multiboot_mmap_entry struct
Hi Andrei,
On 28 February 2016 at 00:44, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Andrei
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 01:26, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 26.02.2016 14:13, fu@linaro.org пишет:
>>> From: Fu Wei
>>>
>>> delete: xen_linux, xen_initrd, xen_xsm
>>> add: xen_module
>>>
>>> This update bases on
>>> com
26 matches
Mail list logo
