linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: riscv,cpu-intc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240522-customs-jaws-d0c792b274b4@spud>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 19:26:55 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Kanak Shilledar <kanakshilledar@...il.com>
Cc: Kanak Shilledar <kanakshilledar111@...tonmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: riscv,cpu-intc

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:11:20PM +0530, Kanak Shilledar wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 9:34 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 09:08:34PM +0530, Kanak Shilledar wrote:
> > > This series of patches converts the RISC-V CPU interrupt controller to
> > > the newer dt-schema binding.
> > >
> > > Patch 1:
> > > This patch is currently at v3 as it has been previously rolled out.
> > > Contains the bindings for the interrupt controller.
> > >
> > > Patch 2:
> > > This patch is currently at v2.
> > > Contains the reference to the above interrupt controller. Thus, making
> > > all the RISC-V interrupt controller bindings in a centralized place.o
> >
> > Don't do this, it breaks tooling:
> >
> >         b4 shazam 20240522153835.22712-2-kanakshilledar111@...tonmail.com
> >         Grabbing thread from lore.kernel.org/all/20240522153835.22712-2-kanakshilledar111@...tonmail.com/t.mbox.gz
> >         Checking for newer revisions
> >         Grabbing search results from lore.kernel.org
> >         Analyzing 3 messages in the thread
> >         Looking for additional code-review trailers on lore.kernel.org
> >         Will use the latest revision: v3
> >         You can pick other revisions using the -vN flag
> >         Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
> >         Retrieving CI status, may take a moment...
> >         ---
> >           ✓ [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: riscv,cpu-intc: convert to dtschema
> >             ✓ Signed: DKIM/gmail.com
> >             + Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> >           ERROR: missing [2/2]!
> >         ---
> >         Total patches: 1
> >         ---
> >         WARNING: Thread incomplete!
> >          Base: using specified base-commit 20cb38a7af88dc40095da7c2c9094da3873fea23
> >         Applying: dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: riscv,cpu-intc: convert to dtschema
> >
> > If you change one patch in a series, the whole series gets a new version.
> > Just let git format-patch do that for you with the "-v N" argument and
> > you'll not have to worry about breaking people's tooling.
> 
> Sorry for the tooling breaking. I used the "-v N" argument to make the
> v2 patches but I bumped up the "riscv,cpu-intc"patch
> to v3 due to it being in v3 already and it gave errors in the previous
> patchset and you mentioned that I missed the v3 in subject line.
> How shall I proceed with this version mismatch? Shall I make the
> patchset as v3 and have both the patches at v3?

I would make it "RESEND v3".

> > Patches themselves are
> > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> 
> I shall include this in my commit message. Is it required to bump the
> version of the patch just for the reviewed flag?

Usually there's no need to resend patches for tags alone. Some people
treat tag-only resubmissions as a "RESEND vN" and others as "vN+1". The
latter is less likely to upset anyone.

Cheers,
Conor.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)