From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792653910; b=Pxp/DDyg94Ly1kHH7AZgXDSfhIc7DtlrHNP50SGq5LbG2+7s30UWI6AEGcbDnR4U+CKv tcQ92yrbJ/QqQ3xRg/3tFpkCSfWcJ6b0LxpAaxHqB/8tzfAMj0oXqp4TaBhaxIrh2P0ZV Irr71wmwmSPKSQME423DG++W/nO6HEe8p2lLSEJQf8E7/NXUMrPKys2NsVPczB/baLhi+ uWtNJ3Ua3LZN8j+A7KWa8PVMc7QFCPbKK28NTGgTOjK5IaSIgpgCMIyvpRrnAdap/WPNs Kqx8GSqQjS1c64bX3KWfw88+rxD6Lnsl16599pf1kCCsQAGniBmpl3KOLqkx/IMgGWQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792653910; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=GzocSWmRnJBjCb2IF2ZXZ1TezmknaQ/uzyUsvuQWgJw=; b=v1BHdE0+zJb9Q7hrj6I1Q7KQ2Xu2umkpFIk9/gjs8kRBepEsJxMWyGdcojoBpa8wGHZU Iq3IS2iNyd8FEBE77lOE+GD/1qJKyxSQ+Nrrq0En4Sde8jmwQteUvo/p3taKF81Yz4tDv bPV0snJJm0jBLdDjDjzZb50FRlPLIC1B0iyDpIV1lax11qkteN21ninLKqNn2K3m56qk6 hgFGKnr6lPvqN2GF76vz2QQT5Z6S+eq0GEepGq0QY9buOvc/VQsGTNFj0dwdEq2PXWFqh rykZ+7tYWREZ7YZ/N8TLtXac+kbLPH11gGzMrk2j9AkFRxDIKczc6X0epCc1wn6YRQg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b="R/0Q6bHq"; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89ECA606A319; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:25:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=R/0Q6bHq Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF9BF1F000C1; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:25:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792653910; bh=GzocSWmRnJBjCb2IF2ZXZ1TezmknaQ/uzyUsvuQWgJw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=R/0Q6bHqEEwQkMFBTpOUh4aAud/xmgWYqMgfLFHpDm11MHPv4m65rIi2mdpJSPAwh Je0+7/QCnmveYgttqoY3iGFia0GHA2u9x+1SiZH7wJyopn2pXBqBQpoHJmjmKZkFHW STd3VJKealBIMYLjCyUHiKYFB8bxsibJr9I3fL2kh+gR4pI2NQs7wSZKUrqKCh3+ql PxGTzA88H+vY6DLs+po4LkexVJ3kKT5bF1Jwuo3KAuELxNJAt4EvBM6z5aJkklf17u TYgikUf80/489n2MTmF2V6Dcc3lNSS299qZHBLeigEikha+CaNebVdDWJ7PQHV26q4 nMfmSSQ/Wd2JQ== Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 00:25:08 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Laurent Pinchart , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Konstantin Ryabitsev Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Require base tree information Message-ID: <20261022072508.GB1857@sol> References: <20261020212235.1143086-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <363b228a-7e96-481a-b70f-195ba55d025e@kernel.org> <20261021063927.GA31908@sol> <20261021064940.GC31908@sol> <20261021163242.GB325924@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <73d01869-b536-4fcd-a139-6f9d0a043347@kernel.org> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <73d01869-b536-4fcd-a139-6f9d0a043347@kernel.org> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 08:57:55AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21/10/2026 18:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 01:55:37PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> > >>> there's no base-commit? Including any historical patch (from > >>> months/years ago), patches with dependencies, etc. > >> > >> Dependency is something else, but for every other patch: > >> 1. For testing/CI: you apply on top of next > >> 2. Every other case the maintainer knows where to apply it, because it > >> is his HEAD of next-branch. > >> > >> I am repeating myself, but I really had no single problem of lack of > >> knowledge where to apply a patch as a maintainer or reviewer of some > >> subsystem, thus maybe I do not understand the actual problem you are > >> experiencing. > > > > When I review patches, I often need to apply them to a tree, mainly to > > see the context, but sometimes also to test them. I have encountered > > many cases where the patch wouldn't apply on the current for-next branch > > of the relevant subsystem. That's often because the patch had > > dependencies. When I'm lucky they are listed manually in the cover > > letter with a link to a branch, but that's far from being the common > > case. I then have to ask the submitter to provide a branch, or enough > > information to recreate a branch. Having base information (base-commit, > > prerequisite-patch-id, and possibly base-tree) would save me quite some > > time. > > > > I understand your concern about maintainers cherry-picking and sometimes > > introducing issues as a result. In that case I also prefer asking the > > submitter to rebase, retest, and resubmit. That's not what I want to use > > base information for, in my case it helps with the review process. > > That's valid and for 95% (guessing the number...) of cases will be > solved by having linux-next as a base, thus requiring the base > information is redundant. It's just linux-next. linux-next changes every day, so "It's just linux-next" is ambiguous. Without base-commit, the workaround ends up being to use the date the patch was sent and various other information to try to guess a base commit. That's time-consuming and unreliable. - Eric