Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v2] Add support for forcing specific module

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com>,
	igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@padovan.org>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v2] Add support for forcing specific module
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 14:33:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181218133302.GM21184@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181218120821.GT17124@platvala-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 02:08:21PM +0200, Petri Latvala wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 09:22:31AM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 7:49 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 05:38:27PM -0300, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > > > This commit adds a new option for forcing the use of a specific driver
> > > > indicated via an environment variable.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since V1:
> > > >  Petri:
> > > >  - Use an environment variable instead of command line
> > > >  - Refactor the loop in __search_and_open to accept forced module
> > > >  - Don't try to load kernel modules
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Note: You can't drop the s-o-b line if your patch contains work by other
> > > people, like from Petri here. Proper way to resend a patch by someone else
> > > is to just add a subject prefix of "PATCH RESEND" and otherwise keep
> > > everything unchanged (including author and everything).
> > >
> > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/245532/
> > 
> > Last time I was told I have to _add_ my s-o-b nonetheless, even if
> > just re-sending the patch.
> > I don't think I should, but in the end I had to change the series, add
> > and change patches,
> > so it didn't matter.
> 
> 
> Communication error here? Rodrigo's resend didn't have my S-o-b,
> that's what Daniel was pointing at. Removing S-o-b is never
> ok. Whether it's correct and/or required to add your own S-o-b to
> resends is another matter.

Correct.

> > Maybe we need some clarification on this?
> > 
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2018-November/183291.html
> 
> That was about a kernel patch, and kernel patches are _very_ strict
> about having to add your S-o-b.

Yes, for the kernel even just sending a patch around by someone, even if
you change nothing, needs your sob.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev