[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190913150111.GI1546@sasha-vm>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:01:11 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@...m.mit.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
nouveau <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"# 3.9+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 092/190] drm/nouveau: Dont WARN_ON VCPI allocation
failures
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 03:54:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:46:27AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 09:33:36AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> > Hi Greg,
>> >
>> > This feels like it's missing a From: line.
>> >
>> > commit b513a18cf1d705bd04efd91c417e79e4938be093
>> > Author: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
>> > Date: Mon Jan 28 16:03:50 2019 -0500
>> >
>> > drm/nouveau: Don't WARN_ON VCPI allocation failures
>> >
>> > Is this an artifact of your notification-of-patches process and I
>> > never noticed before, or was the patch ingested incorrectly?
>>
>> It was always like this for patches that came through me. Greg's script
>> generates an explicit "From:" line in the patch, but I never saw the
>> value in that since git does the right thing by looking at the "From:"
>> line in the mail header.
>>
>> The right thing is being done in stable-rc and for the releases. For
>> your example here, this is how it looks like in the stable-rc tree:
>>
>> commit bdcc885be68289a37d0d063cd94390da81fd8178
>> Author: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
>> AuthorDate: Mon Jan 28 16:03:50 2019 -0500
>> Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> CommitDate: Fri Sep 13 14:05:29 2019 +0100
>>
>> drm/nouveau: Don't WARN_ON VCPI allocation failures
>
>Yeah, we should fix your scripts to put the explicit From: line in here
>as we are dealing with patches in this format and it causes confusion at
>times (like now.) It's not the first time and that's why I added those
>lines to the patches.
Heh, didn't think anyone cared about this scenario for the stable-rc
patches.
I'll go add it.
But... why do you actually care?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists