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=1793045950; b=y/CSEoT5mpcWiGh0jr8uHxK9AWJjSF+lKLoHTT4qGRioWn/F/Wyzjpro5GFj6QB2C3Uz Xs2fu+BLnd1rcG0QiTeuTDdqQfORdLNP0WRbWw6vhNieTCoZQ0eRoNg8i3VT8hXvjvI2s tNHHSwxDdAKSc7CTotMGgh6QUD1zJl/lYc0qcn5u9RzoU87T8Pc7i3eZ3r1vw+f7q0aq/ OElAJDVGF2khHkhhDpAtb/3FF4Xwo38JcLd6TsCmTGPbLDNIZG4MBmwflB4BKPPKl6lHR VmcXchnn0ax+zs/DI13atbpqYoBJZVu43U8hVlUx1fKX8B3qi3dpmkBkSr/CKlAOfgw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793045950; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject: Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To; bh=iqkFxV8nP7M3bMS76DwvwvlKzwURwpGSoPVOPM1lQCo=; b=0qPT0o1UoVJ7z39a3eNlcAHHd9i2T7Og5cq1FjEvD20X6dugN5XaxKNQHE/Ju3r2jHrC MLyHOBnEy4pbKjxzlfeUrSQT6pIXUqGDxXrsXfPjptiG8fEJl/GpGelS1HifpipPiGY7b 0No+u24HJz9fHGS8v3EUdno8b9ohMQOJOFNM+6DgLv1tnJRxA55seqXOeJQRnhOb8tv5Q fl7sHRrg6BRgVAAsAs4DtoPdnWdWfrariKQipgbXO9RUGF28ky0xhmcD9cowY99eTE4NT UcVVGOcgzZo9mqo8v/c5CljwNarBNM06Z6uAjZOePgS9AIr6s/H9FQ0yWU4iuc9igiA== 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=Jb96OtKf; 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 9B437606A31A; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 20:19:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 9B437606A31A 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=Jb96OtKf 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 9463E268; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 21:16:55 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1793045815; bh=L/9HwRDz85cCABU3qYtp39PE1AHoYvEdp7B/YfRsDvg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Jb96OtKf+PJCsGX/AzL77Y9mQMwv6hiCuJC6eGx9UhFdbYhSikGJjo46ytK2tR/iA eGBWaAOkjjJ1sbfC/QTovhQviY4wsLwDBdMrwKTIqhsllYorDQd+DOigDC4EKsD7/c tW8dMfAbEPJDpE4uCKAa3NhuFvCqNE4NOXZZ4FPM= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 22:19:05 +0200 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , 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: <20261026201905.GC2005298@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20261021063927.GA31908@sol> <20261021064940.GC31908@sol> <20261021163242.GB325924@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <73d01869-b536-4fcd-a139-6f9d0a043347@kernel.org> <20261026104056.GH15441@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20261026145343.GC1001933@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> 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: On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 04:37:28PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 at 15:53, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 03:02:27PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 at 11:48, Laurent Pinchart 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. > > > > > > > > > > When patchset does NOT apply on linux-next or maintainer tree is > > > > > non-obvious, the base should be provided, but that is only "if -> > > > > > should". I think the proposal here is a bit different. > > > > > > > > What's the downside though ? As git can easily provide the base > > > > information once configured to do so, what's the downside of asking > > > > contributors to include it ? > > > > > > My base is usually not in your or anyone else's tree... > > > > Hence the prerequisite-patch-id and base tree information. Or do you > > mean your base is not public at all, neither in the form of a branch > > pushed to a public tree, nor as prerequisite patches sent to a public > > list ? > > Correct. How am I supposed to review or apply something that depends on work that is not public ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart