Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 16:40 +, David Howells wrote: > Joe Perches wrote: > > > Umm, no, that's not correct. > > SHA-1 lengths of 12 are unique for quite awhile yet. > > > > https://blog.cuviper.com/2013/11/10/how-short-can-git-abbreviate/ > > The article says: > >

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 16:40 +, David Howells wrote: > Joe Perches wrote: > > > Umm, no, that's not correct. > > SHA-1 lengths of 12 are unique for quite awhile yet. > > > > https://blog.cuviper.com/2013/11/10/how-short-can-git-abbreviate/ > > The article says: > > 1.9% at 12 > >

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

Joe Perches wrote: > Umm, no, that's not correct. > SHA-1 lengths of 12 are unique for quite awhile yet. > > https://blog.cuviper.com/2013/11/10/how-short-can-git-abbreviate/ The article says: 1.9% at 12 which is for 3253824 objects (I get 1.86%). However, that was

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

Joe Perches wrote: > Umm, no, that's not correct. > SHA-1 lengths of 12 are unique for quite awhile yet. > > https://blog.cuviper.com/2013/11/10/how-short-can-git-abbreviate/ The article says: 1.9% at 12 which is for 3253824 objects (I get 1.86%). However, that was three years ago,

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 15:52 +, David Howells wrote: > Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as > > > > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e. > > > > > > > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 15:52 +, David Howells wrote: > Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as > > > > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e. > > > > > > > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

Joe Perches wrote: > > > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as > > > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e. > > > > > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary boot services") > > > > In this case, checkpatch is

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

Joe Perches wrote: > > > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as > > > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e. > > > > > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary boot services") > > > > In this case, checkpatch is wrong. > > Why do

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 14:17 +, David Howells wrote: > Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as > > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e. > > > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 14:17 +, David Howells wrote: > Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as > > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e. > > > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary boot services") >

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

Lukas Wunner wrote: > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e. > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary boot services") In this case, checkpatch is wrong. David

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

Lukas Wunner wrote: > Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as > 12-character SHA-1 followed by the commit subject, i.e. > > 0a637ee61247 ("x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary boot services") In this case, checkpatch is wrong. David

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:31:39AM +, David Howells wrote: > Provide the ability to perform mixed-mode runtime service calls for x86 in > the same way that commit 0a637ee61247bd4bed9b2a07568ef7a1cfc76187 provides Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/efi: Allow invocation of arbitrary runtime services

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:31:39AM +, David Howells wrote: > Provide the ability to perform mixed-mode runtime service calls for x86 in > the same way that commit 0a637ee61247bd4bed9b2a07568ef7a1cfc76187 provides Small nit, checkpatch usually complains that this should be written as