From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792663405; b=uwao50KVwroayP9JFpXU8NSOmVIQqNAAahKz/TJbUHf5EQ8863aoOYLBMzqIYrEpP1eR M0Vdq3X6W6CXUCBVVhvO+9SxhShMtajXZRpvpPKPDrer8eUzw+fTr1iedVTX3qn61n0/V IBUZvEK40TukdHHYXVU72VSbM9fySlvH6wtm22Jlt2Ys6eZlfXRRXNtOAIpzyta7rpzz2 n88n5qW2W7cl5gcLtQNvaKFi20ndW3RQQawAlNB5WWy9vc5kpsqHBPgKqaOoQZiydE9C5 27BH8OysrZO2NOyLaH+cNlCOHo0Tdm3HUto1CyZYntbrJAK2R/Gc5/PTHsNBE1DFTSw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792663405; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject: Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To; bh=LKFHPp9IOzONG9GPjbsaYkZsUGia8IXmv+C23o2wW9k=; b=PWyHFVah2ncQmPQrdDW+j3yksV2Xc4nPl8Mo90HEg/Z1sHccAyz36l2m4Ih8SesKpipw U6O0+Wp812sp1/mQW1WMinDvPyc10nK5OS7ZGfcnytF8vq0Wmut/P8U5jfbmtoI8TGv1R rlKwAdCEU6ctL2MMPSz5i07wFHSQavk3YQll5ny9oZ7DWXGzQgI7u5DJNlkb/+zEcH8s5 HtriM770X2eW51z6h+CdVqXnZx19EdFtI6dSVsgh9JDwGF09GsfdTrhvFDANEY+ccDKQG nyya4szoAbXWeEBOZkKy+On6G44Izz+KqWEpbpS1BmiK71JotH6ugO6gcNnvJV9brCw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=mmB+A4kh; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=213.167.242.64 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59FD4606A31D; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 10:03:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 59FD4606A31D Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=mmB+A4kh Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA09C24A; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 12:01:12 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1792663272; bh=MlZWgSll8i8k01c8fAu3WetXI1sTFaQjCzC3maI6Qug=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mmB+A4khu4no9DpdF/JIEY0MnIjCSW2P0O0WkUX6bwhEmYR3LPt+v4kr6AThnejmm qOGGRLmGvI8zPOu1BorNxbkiHXQAFHaAR9vRtH0/CwtZP+FYP16+xZqVFfVz7tlQcp e4oD/uNIDujpH4kT/VUv7r6Qgqm5jLXMt4Ey/PJU= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:03:19 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Eric Biggers , 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: <20261022100319.GD97006@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> 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> <20261022072508.GB1857@sol> <88eae369-49ba-4581-beb7-a4ff22f43555@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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88eae369-49ba-4581-beb7-a4ff22f43555@kernel.org> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:29:55AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/10/2026 09:25, Eric Biggers wrote: > > 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. > > No, you just apply to the latest next. You don't guess. We speak about > the case of reviewer, so person working with the kernel, thus probably > having not-so-old linux-next available. If the next use as base is old > it won't help you at all, because you might not even have it in your tree. I don't test on linux-next, that causes way too much churn. I test patches I review on top of their respective subsystem's tree, as that's where they will eventually be applied. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart