From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kbuild-all@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
kbuild@lists.01.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable x
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 08:34:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200416083427.GK1163@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blnt5d7j.fsf@intel.com>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:07:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I'd post a revert, but I don't seem to see an upstream commit for this
> > this to revert against. What's the revert policy in these cases? Or can
> > the patch be just ignored by the maintainers so it's not applied?
>
> It has not been applied, and will be ignored, in part thanks to the
> report.
>
> However I think Dan's report is misleading in that it looks like it's
> about a commit while I think it should emphasize that it's a pre-merge
> report on the patch on the mailing list.
>
To be honest, these are auto-generated by the kbuild bot and I was a bit
confused myself.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: kbuild@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable x
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:34:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200416083427.GK1163@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blnt5d7j.fsf@intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:07:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I'd post a revert, but I don't seem to see an upstream commit for this
> > this to revert against. What's the revert policy in these cases? Or can
> > the patch be just ignored by the maintainers so it's not applied?
>
> It has not been applied, and will be ignored, in part thanks to the
> report.
>
> However I think Dan's report is misleading in that it looks like it's
> about a commit while I think it should emphasize that it's a pre-merge
> report on the patch on the mailing list.
>
To be honest, these are auto-generated by the kbuild bot and I was a bit
confused myself.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kbuild-all@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
kbuild@lists.01.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable x
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:34:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200416083427.GK1163@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blnt5d7j.fsf@intel.com>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:07:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I'd post a revert, but I don't seem to see an upstream commit for this
> > this to revert against. What's the revert policy in these cases? Or can
> > the patch be just ignored by the maintainers so it's not applied?
>
> It has not been applied, and will be ignored, in part thanks to the
> report.
>
> However I think Dan's report is misleading in that it looks like it's
> about a commit while I think it should emphasize that it's a pre-merge
> report on the patch on the mailing list.
>
To be honest, these are auto-generated by the kbuild bot and I was a bit
confused myself.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kbuild-all@lists.01.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
kbuild@lists.01.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable x
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:34:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200416083427.GK1163@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blnt5d7j.fsf@intel.com>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:07:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I'd post a revert, but I don't seem to see an upstream commit for this
> > this to revert against. What's the revert policy in these cases? Or can
> > the patch be just ignored by the maintainers so it's not applied?
>
> It has not been applied, and will be ignored, in part thanks to the
> report.
>
> However I think Dan's report is misleading in that it looks like it's
> about a commit while I think it should emphasize that it's a pre-merge
> report on the patch on the mailing list.
>
To be honest, these are auto-generated by the kbuild bot and I was a bit
confused myself.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable x
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:34:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200416083427.GK1163@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blnt5d7j.fsf@intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:07:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I'd post a revert, but I don't seem to see an upstream commit for this
> > this to revert against. What's the revert policy in these cases? Or can
> > the patch be just ignored by the maintainers so it's not applied?
>
> It has not been applied, and will be ignored, in part thanks to the
> report.
>
> However I think Dan's report is misleading in that it looks like it's
> about a commit while I think it should emphasize that it's a pre-merge
> report on the patch on the mailing list.
>
To be honest, these are auto-generated by the kbuild bot and I was a bit
confused myself.
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
kbuild@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable x
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:34:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200416083427.GK1163@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blnt5d7j.fsf@intel.com>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:07:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I'd post a revert, but I don't seem to see an upstream commit for this
> > this to revert against. What's the revert policy in these cases? Or can
> > the patch be just ignored by the maintainers so it's not applied?
>
> It has not been applied, and will be ignored, in part thanks to the
> report.
>
> However I think Dan's report is misleading in that it looks like it's
> about a commit while I think it should emphasize that it's a pre-merge
> report on the patch on the mailing list.
>
To be honest, these are auto-generated by the kbuild bot and I was a bit
confused myself.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-16 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-22 13:47 [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable dw Colin King
2020-02-22 13:47 ` [Intel-gfx] " Colin King
2020-02-22 13:47 ` Colin King
2020-02-22 14:42 ` Chris Wilson
2020-02-22 14:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2020-02-22 14:42 ` Chris Wilson
2020-02-22 14:52 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2020-02-24 23:39 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2020-04-10 19:22 ` [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable x Colin King
2020-04-10 19:22 ` Colin King
2020-04-10 19:22 ` [Intel-gfx] " Colin King
2020-04-10 19:22 ` Colin King
2020-04-10 19:58 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2020-04-10 21:37 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2020-04-14 9:23 ` [PATCH] " Dan Carpenter
2020-04-14 9:23 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-04-14 9:23 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-04-14 9:23 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dan Carpenter
2020-04-14 9:23 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-04-14 9:23 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-04-14 10:07 ` Colin Ian King
2020-04-14 10:07 ` Colin Ian King
2020-04-14 10:07 ` Colin Ian King
2020-04-14 10:07 ` [Intel-gfx] " Colin Ian King
2020-04-14 10:07 ` Colin Ian King
2020-04-15 9:07 ` Jani Nikula
2020-04-15 9:07 ` Jani Nikula
2020-04-15 9:07 ` Jani Nikula
2020-04-15 9:07 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2020-04-15 9:07 ` Jani Nikula
2020-04-16 8:34 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2020-04-16 8:34 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-04-16 8:34 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-04-16 8:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dan Carpenter
2020-04-16 8:34 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-04-16 8:34 ` Dan Carpenter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-04-11 5:54 kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200416083427.GK1163@kadam \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=colin.king@canonical.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
--cc=kbuild@lists.01.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.