From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753302AbdDLH6C (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:58:02 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:36566 "EHLO mail-wm0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752183AbdDLH57 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:57:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:57:54 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header Message-ID: <20170412075754.l2vvyiemsmb3midq@dell> References: <20170410131823.26485-1-kishon@ti.com> <20170410131823.26485-2-kishon@ti.com> <20170411141407.ghpln5u5re5erqud@dell> <3268f5fd-218f-21d4-cc19-39812b58b8ea@ti.com> <20170411163438.yhbe22v34d7chit3@dell> <364bec43-381d-6e8c-0050-1a0dbf0d2655@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <364bec43-381d-6e8c-0050-1a0dbf0d2655@ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-08-21) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 10:04 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >> On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:44 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski > >>>> > >>>> The MFD-specific header will go away because it duplicates defines from > >>>> exynos-regs-pmu.h. > >>>> > >>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot > >>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > >>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > >>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones > >>> > >>> > >>> Okay, this is confusing. > >>> > >>> I'm guessing you're sending this to Greg for inclusion into -stable? > >> > >> No, it's not for stable. It's for 4.12. > > > > Then I'm totally confused, since this patch has already been applied, > > which is obvious since I already signed it off? > > With your immutable branch applied to phy tree, it's going to be part of my > pull request too. Okay, now I understand. > >>> Isn't there a way to specify this intention? > >> > >> The pull request (cover letter) specifies this intention. > > > > Great! But you forgot to send it to me, doh! > > > > Why are you sending patches with a pull-request? > > Greg KH sometimes would like to take a look at the patches that are part of the > pull request. I've been practicing it for a long time. It's a strange practice that I've not seen before. IMHO, it displays a lack of trust for you as Maintainer. Also, in Greg's words: "I have no idea, I dropped it and totally ignored it :)" Might be worth stopping this particular practice. If he really wants to check the patches before pulling from you he can always `git log -p ` the patches from afar. > >>> Also, patch 1 and 3 appear to be identical. > >>> > >>> Not even sure how that's possible. > > > > Still have no idea how you managed to do this! > > I think first it got applied when I applied patches from local-next to next and > then I did a merge of your immutable branch. Sounds like an odd pickle to find yourself in. Might be worth reviewing the way you handle immutable branches. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog