[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230726-affix-employed-319aada685e7@wendy>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 07:45:08 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
To: "chenjiahao (C)" <chenjiahao16@...wei.com>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
<palmer@...belt.com>, <guoren@...nel.org>, <heiko@...ech.de>,
<bjorn@...osinc.com>, <alex@...ti.fr>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<atishp@...osinc.com>, <bhe@...hat.com>,
<thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>, <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v8 0/2] support allocating crashkernel above 4G
explicitly on riscv
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:20:00AM +0800, chenjiahao (C) wrote:
>
> On 2023/7/26 5:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Your $subject says -next, but the patch failed to apply to
> > riscv/for-next. What was the base for this patchset?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Conor.
>
> Hi,
>
> My patchset was tested on current linux-next HEAD
> (commit ID: 1e25dd777248, tag: next-20230725) and
> it seems all ok.
> Could you try applying with the base above, or
> is there any problem with that base?
There's some difference between linux-next and riscv/for-next that
prevents the patchwork automation from applying the patches.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists