From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751292AbdFEPxV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:53:21 -0400
Received: from mail-wr0-f169.google.com ([209.85.128.169]:34495 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751112AbdFEPxT (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:53:19 -0400
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:53:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 00/13] First batch of EFI updates for v4.13
Message-ID: <20170605155315.4itewwfjhl5ac7c5@gmail.com>
References: <20170602135207.21708-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <CAKv+Gu8RCwmwifH5nONSi4BkkA0d5oNZP9uX0iBagXOOXe7tpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170605090755.6hf2b7hqgvfn44ao@gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu8fDd5Gb-8MNCErnyfO=Lhw4D9JewEPUqahu9LDJaJifg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu8fDd5Gb-8MNCErnyfO=Lhw4D9JewEPUqahu9LDJaJifg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:

> > It would be nice to fix your SOB flow: the maintainer who queues up a patch should
> > add the SOB, and add an Acked-by of the co-maintainer if the co-maintainer agrees
> > with the patch as well. The tree should typically not be rebased after that point
> > (especially not by the other co-maintainer) - that's just indicative of a messy
> > workflow.
> 
> OK, so this is exactly what we have in the queue right now, and what I
> sent the pull request for.

Ok, the SOB chains are perfect - and I've started applying the patches to 
tip:efi/core.

Most of them are looking good, except #1 which won't apply. There were a few small 
details in changelogs that I have fixed up in place.

Will push out the rest if they pass testing.

Thanks,

	Ingo