From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 256AE1CB30E; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 21:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726696545; cv=none; b=QSEpT5F+3o3dkCyeJJBlbTTfIxfJVezniiuxBPU+hSAZwy3l6YAAN3LFr0SyZhDaNqvlFMeXodZPttJajouwXuf0wXoHbLycI1cDa1BUML2Cki4UqlCwQ9LJLcIhcXnYXzMDpaga/08ggWKn667BzKK0iWuYB3342XzOvpoDCYE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726696545; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7xGLH2wonaWgv/SjhCQ5ocdIj473nkr7jvxg2Yjg5Lk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=skVWqkoE8gEm+w3TtXyJqV9IW1bMMmMo0uZx4pKs4nLhyTOlNvxnNoqprp7BQ+eQnTiBxR2uAso1fFeIILonnpQEe6hWSQzNViL+H+rIiGEe7y30pJhSoXXrRoi1iQnGR3EqnootQ0Ylv5o3pMzxcaq9IcKJmxSJZp5GFzfGb1I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b=ZcbOeVKT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b="ZcbOeVKT" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1726696540; bh=DausSjUsXG5RNspjazc8sw44PBL+2niaH9kAnQLZEQ4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ZcbOeVKT3jR3X4JMzy+A8MggPJUxyabdz0wGbhOSZmktpPr7G2u+ySfniBQn3YVZq sTY+E3UP/zIqdZz3ceoBzWVStACwWHUro3AOqHOTYvg3pwznAULGa4Uo2YADjAUnq2 MON4fV7SvPBi8yguELID3KKjel/zmeY7367fyQ+KCvaOvEy482F6LxcX70nQUNUU7T +AuzpAlJFfVqSfoP3QGdBfWMHTKsH7mykB2Bmk5hD5t59IlaE/1lmPxq6KbpY6pURa dVY1ROoNIAeXmCwvhO5hBmeeqC78a1nbuzCc0rnceTEX4Sm6dZOW+KCBzjXmA2BYB6 EoYXobdm16fYA== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4X8CBg6Sssz4xQc; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 07:55:39 +1000 (AEST) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 07:55:39 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the s390 tree Message-ID: <20240919075539.27f5b782@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: References: <20240919072627.2639bbe9@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/wo.b.7hMnK.f92PZS64DE0V"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 --Sig_/wo.b.7hMnK.f92PZS64DE0V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jason, On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 23:28:11 +0200 "Jason A. Donenfeld" w= rote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 11:26=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different com= mit > > (but the same patch): > > > > 0147addc4fb7 ("s390/facility: Disable compile time optimization for d= ecompressor code") > > > > This is commit > > > > 26d4959681e3 ("s390/facility: Disable compile time optimization for d= ecompressor code") > > > > in Linus' tree. =20 >=20 > From [1]: >=20 > "Please note that the first patch of this series is already in linux-next > [1], but given that it is so small it seems to be the easiest to apply it > also on your tree; but I'm sure somebody will complain :)" >=20 > So I think this is to be expected. Yeah, no worries. I just report them in case there was a mistake or lack of communication. Clearly not in this case. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/wo.b.7hMnK.f92PZS64DE0V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmbrTFsACgkQAVBC80lX 0GwN+Af/QuwkIixGaTFO+C77b3BeWpVBsooye1PHaZsW5F+ir3PM2G3oZcSEtBBG GuYaGJyUVPoSXHXc15MVb7RhFm4oM83qU99dizTyWh0hup19n2v7Sjo97p7f380k A+vz8m/baLnzzBrRgNdc2mxIi5bFdL7oObCJuV17LktmUe15d18HUDIKrgg493ew fxmVR1nV7qLdb2L8nK6r53Q13lmxUqQxxG0OmXGa15K+KlkYB+N8fB4W7ITJNCTc /0llGk2p86RysGSa2k9XX9l8G8oE101X9gMU3xMIEVGqH8XrhXMmsm2P6dsBbum+ 9cenlWGFkDJz5pwTOf/o98okl3TrPA== =3OvV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/wo.b.7hMnK.f92PZS64DE0V--