From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:48824 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751598AbdLDTwa (ORCPT
        <rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:52:30 -0500
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:52:36 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?=
        <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] drm/i915: Fix init_clock_gating for resume"
 was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.14-stable tree?
Message-ID: <20171204195236.GA23720@kroah.com>
References: <151239096842223@kroah.com>
 <20171204125431.GQ10981@intel.com>
 <20171204131300.GA5278@kroah.com>
 <20171204134118.GR10981@intel.com>
 <20171204134714.GA28519@kroah.com>
 <20171204184550.6of226m2om2sfcpm@intel.com>
 <20171204190706.GA19204@kroah.com>
 <CAKMK7uHeDm_7qteGgfTTHqO=QbvAwfOuzo6ki5Wyk0AD-bgJLw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHeDm_7qteGgfTTHqO=QbvAwfOuzo6ki5Wyk0AD-bgJLw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 08:18:47PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:45:50AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >> - What was the reason that you used the "WTF - never to be seen again" tone
> >>   instead of the regular "FAILED - if someone wants to apply..."? Or in other
> >>   words, what can we do to improve and not make you angry again?
> >
> > First off, the WTF is just an email script, don't take it personally.
> 
> Jumping in here - tune it down a bit so it's less confusing? I guess
> in general it's not all that confusing, but since we did upset you
> rather badly a few months ago it's easy to jump to conclusions here
> and assume that i915 maintainers once more upset Greg badly :-/

Well, I'm ignoring the 10+ patches that I had to drop because I had
duplicates already applied, that did make me grumpy, but I'll live with
it for now...

> Just an idea in the spirit of the "make the bots friendlier"
> discussion from iirc kernel summit.

Normally, the script here is correct, it is rare that this type of
failure happens (dependancy on a patch that failed).  In fact, I think
it's the first time...

thanks,

greg k-h