From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:28:58 +0000
Subject: [RFC+CFT] Use word operations in bitops
In-Reply-To: <20110118155851.GC10686@pengutronix.de>
References: <20110116121911.GB27542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20110117100857.GS6917@pengutronix.de>
	<20110117104618.GB18626@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20110118153257.GA10686@pengutronix.de>
	<20110118154344.GG10997@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20110118155851.GC10686@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <20110118162858.GA17398@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 04:58:51PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> Hello Russell,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 03:43:44PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 04:32:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:46:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I will continue to mail out patches which I want people to test and give
> > feedback on, because that is the _only_ way to do it.
> Note that I didn't suggest to stop sending out patches and collecting
> the acks and tested-bys there.  The automated tests are just a different
> test.
> 
> And IMHO it's not harder to reply with a git commit-id, but it makes it
> more likely that a reply to a wrong mail is detected.

No.  Take a moment and think.

Two people pull the commits one evening.  One gets in during GMT morning,
checks their tests, and reports "git commit X passed, have this Tested-by".
So, their tested-by is added to the commit, which changes the git ID to
Y.

Second person gets in during GMT afternoon, and reports "git commit X
passed."  Now instead of looking in the current branch, I'd have to
cross-reference it back to what was originally there, check that's
what they actually meant, look that up in the new branch, and apply
their tested-by to that instead.

More complicated means more things to go wrong.  No thank you.