From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 092/190] drm/nouveau: Dont WARN_ON VCPI allocation failures Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:01:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20190913150111.GI1546@sasha-vm> References: <20190913130559.669563815@linuxfoundation.org> <20190913130606.981926197@linuxfoundation.org> <20190913144627.GH1546@sasha-vm> <20190913145456.GA456842@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190913145456.GA456842@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Ilia Mirkin , LKML , dri-devel , Ben Skeggs , nouveau , "# 3.9+" List-Id: nouveau.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 03:54:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:46:27AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 09:33:36AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> > Hi Greg, >> > >> > This feels like it's missing a From: line. >> > >> > commit b513a18cf1d705bd04efd91c417e79e4938be093 >> > Author: Lyude Paul >> > Date: Mon Jan 28 16:03:50 2019 -0500 >> > >> > drm/nouveau: Don't WARN_ON VCPI allocation failures >> > >> > Is this an artifact of your notification-of-patches process and I >> > never noticed before, or was the patch ingested incorrectly? >> >> It was always like this for patches that came through me. Greg's script >> generates an explicit "From:" line in the patch, but I never saw the >> value in that since git does the right thing by looking at the "From:" >> line in the mail header. >> >> The right thing is being done in stable-rc and for the releases. For >> your example here, this is how it looks like in the stable-rc tree: >> >> commit bdcc885be68289a37d0d063cd94390da81fd8178 >> Author: Lyude Paul >> AuthorDate: Mon Jan 28 16:03:50 2019 -0500 >> Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman >> CommitDate: Fri Sep 13 14:05:29 2019 +0100 >> >> drm/nouveau: Don't WARN_ON VCPI allocation failures > >Yeah, we should fix your scripts to put the explicit From: line in here >as we are dealing with patches in this format and it causes confusion at >times (like now.) It's not the first time and that's why I added those >lines to the patches. Heh, didn't think anyone cared about this scenario for the stable-rc patches. I'll go add it. But... why do you actually care? -- Thanks, Sasha