All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <56654A36.6070708@huawei.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 168a6d0..dc9d5da 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ On 2015/11/30 22:47, Julien Grall wrote:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > On 23/11/15 11:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
->> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, shannon.zhao at linaro.org wrote:
+>> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, shannon.zhao@linaro.org wrote:
 >>> >> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
 >> > could you please add a couple of lines to the commit message mentioning
 >> > why __va(phys) is an acceptable implementation of arch_acpi_os_map_memory?
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ On 2015/11/30 22:47, Julien Grall wrote:
 > someone confirm the ACPI will always reside to the RAM?
 I checked this with the UEFI SPEC. It says in 2.3.6 AArch64 Platforms:
 "If ACPI is supported :
-? ACPI Tables loaded at boot time can be contained in memory of type
+• ACPI Tables loaded at boot time can be contained in memory of type
 EfiACPIReclaimMemory (recommended) or EfiACPIMemoryNVS."
 
 So I think it means the ACPI tables will always reside in RAM.
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 4fb3a06..e8ecd56 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -2,10 +2,22 @@
  "ref\01447753261-7552-8-git-send-email-shannon.zhao@linaro.org\0"
  "ref\0alpine.DEB.2.02.1511231137000.1107@kaball.uk.xensource.com\0"
  "ref\0565C6198.3070805@citrix.com\0"
- "From\0zhaoshenglong@huawei.com (Shannon Zhao)\0"
- "Subject\0[Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 07/62] arm/acpi: Add arch_acpi_os_map_memory helper function for ARM\0"
+ "From\0Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com>\0"
+ "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v3 07/62] arm/acpi: Add arch_acpi_os_map_memory helper function for ARM\0"
  "Date\0Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:58:30 +0800\0"
- "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
+ "To\0Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>"
+  Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
+ " shannon.zhao@linaro.org\0"
+ "Cc\0mark.rutland@arm.com"
+  hangaohuai@huawei.com
+  keir@xen.org
+  ian.campbell@citrix.com
+  ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
+  peter.huangpeng@huawei.com
+  xen-devel@lists.xen.org
+  stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
+  jbeulich@suse.com
+ " linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "Hi,\n"
@@ -14,7 +26,7 @@
  "> Hi,\n"
  "> \n"
  "> On 23/11/15 11:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:\n"
- ">> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, shannon.zhao at linaro.org wrote:\n"
+ ">> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, shannon.zhao@linaro.org wrote:\n"
  ">>> >> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>\n"
  ">> > could you please add a couple of lines to the commit message mentioning\n"
  ">> > why __va(phys) is an acceptable implementation of arch_acpi_os_map_memory?\n"
@@ -26,7 +38,7 @@
  "> someone confirm the ACPI will always reside to the RAM?\n"
  "I checked this with the UEFI SPEC. It says in 2.3.6 AArch64 Platforms:\n"
  "\"If ACPI is supported :\n"
- "? ACPI Tables loaded at boot time can be contained in memory of type\n"
+ "\342\200\242 ACPI Tables loaded at boot time can be contained in memory of type\n"
  "EfiACPIReclaimMemory (recommended) or EfiACPIMemoryNVS.\"\n"
  "\n"
  "So I think it means the ACPI tables will always reside in RAM.\n"
@@ -35,4 +47,4 @@
  "-- \n"
  Shannon
 
-15e34b0c03cabbd21ffe40176d5b37beadde5f03fff9c540ead11bab7a28d52d
+833b498e718f82b4fe6e0564fa3a5d3b08b8d4134ee3d5263e976f536697af0c

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.