On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:57:23PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> So, should this patch be included in a respin or not?
Yes please. Do them all ontop of tip/master.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:57:23PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> So, should this patch be included in a respin or not?
Yes please. Do them all ontop of tip/master.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
On 18.04.2018 15:53, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> Can't really find this commit in any tree I have looked at (bp.git and
>> tip.git at kernel.org).
>> Was it pushed somewhere else?
>
> No. Still waiting for the rest.
>
So,
On 18.04.2018 15:53, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> Can't really find this commit in any tree I have looked at (bp.git and
>> tip.git at kernel.org).
>> Was it pushed somewhere else?
>
> No. Still waiting for the rest.
>
So,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> Can't really find this commit in any tree I have looked at (bp.git and
> tip.git at kernel.org).
> Was it pushed somewhere else?
No. Still waiting for the rest.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> Can't really find this commit in any tree I have looked at (bp.git and
> tip.git at kernel.org).
> Was it pushed somewhere else?
No. Still waiting for the rest.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400:
On 18.03.2018 17:12, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:07:42AM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> verify_patch_size() function verifies whether the microcode container file
>> remaining size is large enough to contain a patch of the indicated size.
>>
>> However, the section
On 18.03.2018 17:12, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:07:42AM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> verify_patch_size() function verifies whether the microcode container file
>> remaining size is large enough to contain a patch of the indicated size.
>>
>> However, the section
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:07:42AM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> verify_patch_size() function verifies whether the microcode container file
> remaining size is large enough to contain a patch of the indicated size.
>
> However, the section header length is not included in this indicated
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:07:42AM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> verify_patch_size() function verifies whether the microcode container file
> remaining size is large enough to contain a patch of the indicated size.
>
> However, the section header length is not included in this indicated
verify_patch_size() function verifies whether the microcode container file
remaining size is large enough to contain a patch of the indicated size.
However, the section header length is not included in this indicated size
but it is present in the leftover file length so it should be subtracted
verify_patch_size() function verifies whether the microcode container file
remaining size is large enough to contain a patch of the indicated size.
However, the section header length is not included in this indicated size
but it is present in the leftover file length so it should be subtracted
12 matches
Mail list logo
