From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED62C388F3 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:00:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F9B20873 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:00:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728501AbfI1OAD (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Sep 2019 10:00:03 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:53799 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725957AbfI1OAC (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Sep 2019 10:00:02 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Sep 2019 07:00:02 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,559,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="391492522" Received: from baoyuyan-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.255.31.72]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2019 07:00:01 -0700 Message-ID: <64052a03bf5af899574ad81dff9203cfc307901c.camel@intel.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal management updates for v5.4-rc1 From: Zhang Rui To: Linus Torvalds Cc: LKML , Linux PM list Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 22:00:00 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Linus, I'm really sorry about this. I thought no code change could be a reason that a rebase can be accepted, but didn't realize this is exactly the case we should avoid it. I wish I could read Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and- merging.rst earlier so that I didn't make this mistake. Sorry to bring this trouble. thanks, rui On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 11:34 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:08 AM Zhang Rui > wrote: > > > > One thing to mention is that, all the patches have been tested in > > linux-next for weeks, but there is a conflict detected, because > > upstream has took commit eaf7b46083a7e34 ("docs: thermal: add it to > > the > > driver API") from jc-docs tree while I'm keeping a wrong version of > > the > > patch, so I just rebased my tree to fix this. > > Why do I have to say this EVERY single release? > > A conflict is not a reason to rebase. Conflicts happen. They happen a > lot. I deal with them, and it's usually trivial. > > If you feel it's not trivial, just describe what the resolution is, > rather than rebasing. Really. > > Rebasing for a random conflict (particularly in documentation, for > chrissake!) is like using an atomic bomb to swat a fly. You have all > those downsides, and there are basically _no_ upsides. It only makes > for more work for me because I have to re-write this email for the > millionth time, and that takes longer and is more aggravating than > the > conflict would have taken to just sort out. > > Linus