[U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Albert ARIBAUD
2014-02-19T14:38:54Z

Hi Lukasz,

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:25:37 +0100, Lukasz Majewski
<l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote:

> Hi Albert,
>
> > Hi Hector,
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:52:07 +0100, "Palacios, Hector"
> > <Hector.Palacios@digi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/19/2014 11:16 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:08:03 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD
> > > >
> > > >>> Thanks for pointing out. Now it is perfectly visible :-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Inclusion of v2 has been postponed since there was a
> > > >>>>> discussion if we shall allow unaligned access
> > > >>>>> (-mno-unaligned-access flag) at armv7 (after patches posted
> > > >>>>> by Tom).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> As fair as I can tell, we will keep the current approach so,
> > > >>>>> I think that Tom will be willing to pull this patch (v2) now.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Agreed, but then we should make sure no one has comments on V2
> > > >>>> that they might have withheld due to the initial rejection of
> > > >>>> V2.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Any comments?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This patch do fix unaligned access problem on Trats2
> > > >>> (Exynos4412), when we restore/create GPT, so I would like to
> > > >>> know if there are any new inquires regarding this patch.
> > > >>
> > > >> Does not seem to be, so I will apply V2.
> > > >
> > > > Correction: I would like it to be applied as per current ARM
> > > > alignment policy, but this patch is not ARM per se and is in
> > > > Tom's hands.
> > > >
> > > > Tom, can you apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/314717/ ?
> > > > This would by no means close the discussion I opened, and in the
> > > > event of a policy change, the patch could always be reverted;
> > > > meanwhile, it matches our current policy.
> > >
> > > I tested Piotr's patch on i.MX6 (armv7) custom board and it is
> > > working fine without the -mno-unaligned-access flag.
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Hector Palacios <hector.palacios@digi.com>
> >
> > You've just Tested-By-ed your own patch, I think.
>
> Nope.
>
> Patch prepared by Piotr is orthogonal to the one prepared by Hector.
>
> Hector has spotted other mistake at GPT code (made by me).
> Fix for it has been posted a few days ago:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/319914/

I did not comment on the relationship between patches, I only
commented on the fact that Hector said he has tested Piotr's patch but
sent his Tested-by on his own patch thread, not on Piotr's. To verify
this, look up

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/319649/

... which is Hector's patchwork entry and has his own Tested-by, and

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/314717/

... which is Piotr's patch and does not have Hector's (or
anyone's) Tested-by.

Amicalement,
--
Albert.