#31: Do proper checking for flash erase for SST FWH parts -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- Reporter: stepan | Owner: stepan Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: minor | Milestone: Enhance the flashrom utility Component: flashrom | Version: v2 Resolution: | Keywords: Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY | Include_gantt: 0 Dependencies: | Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY Patchstatus: patch needs review | -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- Comment (by uwe):
Replying to [comment:3 segher]:
Every patch needs review, unless it already got it, and then it's either back to the drawing table, or that patch get's checked in :-)
Sure, but we need a state which tells us that there is a patch at all (not all tickets have a patch), and in which state it is (has it already been reviewed? does it need more work? is it ready to be comitted?) etc.
This is mostly used for the shiny new "Patch Queue" I created yesterday: http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/report/9 (or click View Tickets -> Patch Queue)
That should make it easier to track which tickets have patches and in which state. Reviewers or people who want to commit patches which have been approved can simply work on the patch queue and make it smaller.
If total_size is indeed the size of flash that got erased, it looks good to me. But Stefan himself knows best, he should just go ahead and apply the patch if no one complains soon (like, wait for tomorrow morning or something like that).
Add an Acked-by: if it looks good to you. One important part of the sign- off procedure is that we have sort of a group-review, i.e. at least one other developer has to review the patch and give it his/her ACK (the other important part is copyright and authorship tracking, of course).