Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: give names to realmode wakeup flags

[Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>]

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 03:39:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 03:35 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Instead of using literals, use a common set of names for the
> > user-controlled realmode wakeup flags.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>
> 
> I'm sorry, but I really have to complain about this:
> 
> This was a very unfriendly thing to do.

Obviously I wasn't trying to be unfriendly. :P

> You took a patch that is a bug fix to be considered for -stable,
> and you applied it *on top of a cleanup patch*.

It wasn't clear to me if the MISC_ENABLE reload should be considered for
stable (it does technically "more" than my original patch, and changes
the resume header structure, etc). If it should be forwarded to -stable,
that's fine too. I just didn't want to presume.

> They should not have been part of the same patchset,
> but *certainly* not in that order.

Since they hit the same .h file in the same location, I wasn't sure what
order to do it in. It seemed unhelpful to send them separately.

> Please resubmit.

Sure thing -- in the opposite order, or totally separate from each other?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team