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 Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED14C4332F for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 17:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C15810E0C9; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 17:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 909A810E0C9 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 17:37:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1699465055; x=1731001055; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=y9I4QX0S28uiRHsq1BYjlsRHIXj6aKMFQBOvwnAUZfA=; b=aNsMiPXRSqgoadVxmba7c9Gl35eR3Bz9zIC0cM2Swll/hU5Epo8xeyGb Vejd7FXAYAhEbRnoGsVCtcMp7CKq7A+tLT72ycJgbghT+2lIGP+/b+PFS 9ii4GQ1QcxSuz9TLURfbkGg2WAXcNGNXD8NbHxeTUx4dpaN0HCQtbQVOJ KEPF4JJmQW6ubgu/Koq0R/8Is2+bWeQ0tHdVsv2bpsjL0rWxCEISNl59a pbW33Wt3zLrEGfgyD58FSTarRmdmVJMg5rIBY0cY+4SGDxf7wACfFIaOq mHAlbjCC8e10d6Cln7NIb1kl6FCyitj3FB1uU0wOaXMmYiiZR0Ne4RHZQ w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10888"; a="374864162" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,286,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="374864162" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Nov 2023 09:37:34 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10888"; a="886722707" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,286,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="886722707" Received: from vseredyx-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.252.38.119]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Nov 2023 09:37:32 -0800 From: Jani Nikula To: Lucas De Marchi In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <202311070416.8nPv4n6G-lkp@intel.com> <87a5rqymy8.fsf@intel.com> <87fs1gy34m.fsf@intel.com> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 19:37:30 +0200 Message-ID: <875y2cxi1x.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [drm-xe:oak/drm-evictable-lru 2911/3055] drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h: linux/mutex.h is included more than once. X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Rodrigo Vivi , kernel test robot , intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" On Wed, 08 Nov 2023, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 12:02:17PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >>On Tue, 07 Nov 2023, Lucas De Marchi wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 10:41:51AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>On Tue, 07 Nov 2023, kernel test robot wrote: >>>>> tree: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel.git oak/drm-evictable-lru >>>> >>>>Why do we have this stale branch? I don't think developers should push >>>>their branches to xe/kernel.git but their own repos instead. >>> >>> agreed. I just blocked branch creation in gitlab so we don't have >>> those accidents anymore. >> >>I was looking for this yesterday. For future reference, which knob is it >>and where in the gitlab UI? > > Settings > Repository > Protected branches > > - "drm-xe-next" [default] [protected] > - Allowed to merge: Maintainers > - Allowed to push and merge: Developers + Maintainers, Maintainers > > "*" (12 matching branches) > - Allowed to push and merge: No one > - Allowed to merge: No one Right. I was close. I was looking at branch rules, and adding a branch rule says, "To create a branch rule, you first need to create a protected branch." but I didn't want to create a branch. Even under protected branches it says, "Add protected branch", but I didn't want to *add* branches, just prevent pushing. Oh well. Thanks for doing this. > I thought about creating a role to allow branch creation, but to keep it > simple, I just blocked it. When/if we need it then we can temporarily > disable the rule, like we do for force pushes when we rebase. I'm not even sure you can add new roles in the free version. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel