From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 DB9F6235063; Fri, 16 May 2025 12:29:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747398566; cv=none; b=pqCdq7G8lLLi+MJEdEXUManjXAn7NxIPBvrxMRZRcy2XM9dQote+Q9ypg82DUyF23LwPTXO41EwxNnkd5T8KXsHDO2JyM9YmOkR43FTLweAgx27RpITMlYaZ3VIfpbk80E+gQeoeGQMbvkUS1w9GSaB1he3JKhoxFCCOXHA3vZA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747398566; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KTxOt6wCKajOUiqP/zeq2Yl3SxpLh1CxH9DAEovFdqI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GLW8W1EoegheBy6sJCdVjIu51BfvgqnaD2Sa5+UkLndmkuh7teS93cLayXepjIV0qOMBmD9mxPLMgpvwYBtvWmBhp5ho4zZZdMlw755JZzy/MzFtfseGOdT/HmiRsTIq5paQ6lzlosyO8uxgyt/hUMO31SKZTrv0q3eIk6UqbPs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=AtImGomR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="AtImGomR" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95C99C4CEE4; Fri, 16 May 2025 12:29:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1747398565; bh=KTxOt6wCKajOUiqP/zeq2Yl3SxpLh1CxH9DAEovFdqI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=AtImGomRKyX0HrKgOc6RhP//Sl6K2+2UApbuRiT6s9UEO9Mjx9GP7+ewdFHfBYazq AobTyTbaG9E8iRygKCReEPD7DUJsYY5yEVyOA2xOD1kTgWZC8TX3Gh9diwDDOr75lX vy6omROkxPgrL1/dcMQUNc4jquCCxc8Rs0JwkttKpwD7qtYfqPRxwarGG+u21jrF2+ sDcbazp46rrOFgq0+ojtwsuXSpGTDrqLmqefbXmY9nDsr2t85FdB3kTxX14pJ93HQr FkJbRHG1mkzXgSKkqxdeHS2b4/HffhumEjnkwk7CJ/4W6sNcynSh78dGYLhb2fklwC Zr3/1FYdYDDTw== Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 14:29:20 +0200 From: Niklas Cassel To: Krzysztof =?utf-8?B?V2lsY3p577+977+9c2tp?= Cc: Hans Zhang , kernel test robot , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Wilfred Mallawa , "llvm@lists.linux.dev" , "oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?5Zue5aSNOiBbcGNpOnNsb3QtcmVz?= =?utf-8?Q?et_1=2F1=5D_drivers=2Fpci=2Fcontroller=2Fdwc=2Fpcie-dw-rockchip?= =?utf-8?Q?=2Ec=3A721=3A58=3A_error?= =?utf-8?Q?=3A?= use of undeclared identifier 'PCIE_CLIENT_GENERAL_CON' Message-ID: References: <202505152337.AoKvnBmd-lkp@intel.com> <20250515162405.GA511285@rocinante> <20250516103633.GA448167@rocinante> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20250516103633.GA448167@rocinante> Hello Krzysztof, On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 07:36:33PM +0900, Krzysztof Wilczy��ski wrote: > Hello, > > [...] > > Comparing the commit that landed on the branch, with Wilfred's patch on the > > mailing list, I did notice this diff: > > [...] > > Reviewing the diff, the changes looks fine to me, but I strongly think > > that if the actual code is modified from the submission (rather than > > just fixing some minor grammar in the commit message), the (unwritten?) > > rule is that the person should add a: > > > > [person: describe modifications from the original submission] > > Sorry about that. I did forgot to add this. Good catch. > > That said, a single single line with a nudge or a reminder would suffice. > > There is no need for a condescending tone and the lecturing and such. I've been reading my reply multiple times, and I honestly don't understand where this is coming from. I was simply saying that, if the actual code is changed when applying, then I think that it is important to either: 1) Write something in the thread (e.g. in the 'Applied' message), or 2) Add a [user: ] line after the SoB When it comes to simply modifying the commit log, then, my personal opinion is that 1) and/or 2) is of magnitudes less importance. I wasn't trying to lecture, I was simply trying to explain the logic of my opinion. > > You have been doing this for a while now, and if you continue doing this, > I will have no choice but to start to ignore submissions from you, I do not > have the time to deal with any forms of such passive-aggressive attitude. This is surprising to me, our only other discussion recently was about RESEND tags, were I also stated my personal opinion. But that was also a sensible discussion IMO. Not being allowed to pick up tags, e.g. Reviewed-by and Tested-by, when doing a RESEND (as long as code and commit log is unchanged) seems counterproductive to me, as the time spent by the Tester/Reviewer would have been for nought. Kind regards, Niklas