From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 ~ 3.14] efi: fix the efi 32bit boot failed problem Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:45:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20150730164544.GL2725@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1438078879-24705-1-git-send-email-fupan.li@windriver.com> <20150730150428.GJ2725@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20150730163102.GA19943@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150730163102.GA19943-U8xfFu+wG4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Greg KH Cc: fupan.li-CWA4WttNNZF54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, fupanli-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Luis Henriques , stable-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 30 Jul, at 09:31:02AM, Greg KH wrote: > > Why isn't this an issue in newer kernel releases? Did this already get > fixed by some other patch? If so, why can't we just take that patch? > If not, why not? The commit 35d5134b7d5a ("x86/efi: Correct EFI boot stub use of code32_start") only exists in the stable trees in that form because there was quite a lot of churn in that area in Linus tree that didn't get backported. So the code in Linus' tree never looked like the code in the stable does right now. > I _REALLY_ don't like taking patches that are not already in Linus's > tree, as it almost always turns out to be the wrong solution. Yeah, I think this issue verifies that. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center