From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.20]) (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 03F6513A262 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707936853; cv=none; b=YInu1NjWn/0qNCCPs+/pyKWzV7HgHXzIGcFGT0L6C20rT1x9YFdC+OdAj7ClGXu5/n0GFmFK5llog/uHdsXq3r1SXWAS7DomubOYNAv8JJHQnG7JjI2ednQ6Pf21PXtfTK7BmrqRGrXH+r2FIGVOLULTbiN2AJeOlvWPeP4IH+U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707936853; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eWA11KNS0zjl3L+EapG3j/Q2c1AXjjIWqJqdZ+GKJxo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oCEPJvO7fdTdiuNe5wJgdHvRmDS6q+L72K3nrV3YWXD9dYF7zt4VwTScl2EGvfnLkzP4iA6CfPiV/Y9wHvIUbmvT1gLyMVDJeo6q0A5x2eUfsqVwAAE/FxbaFvSKuTJWxgDrw+4oX312BPvSOA5Y9QKEbrgK/Y2DFslC81/yUiY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=iBJtoocy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="iBJtoocy" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1707936852; x=1739472852; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=eWA11KNS0zjl3L+EapG3j/Q2c1AXjjIWqJqdZ+GKJxo=; b=iBJtoocySh0GR+pe2MNpmCAQRst3No1Wuadqapu3f4FqEe8dvvVjKPbv a8z3gibN2KCyhJahjVfO2s8KjYje8kTotd/3lPHSrFx/kGi7VBdbGdZxR XVXGCMG/Th8s02UlPex5aLkwGoAHxVzkp4UzWrBB3jRXGyQDu5paFwJSM JM+5a3INHEl8+8iBjjdTB5gn9LwEWy32ErJF94uFxzhYrC8NSBZzN+WNx oNWUutY5PqZSaG4WN31c5suLnmIlMfGc+v3uUeZHh/heCeXj8XedW/ITL A3mxFCGQexDOFRp2SyEKvmaWaiUgiirgIWS0bXxsRAXIORLv1LgBCf+Uc Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10984"; a="1870055" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,160,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="1870055" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orvoesa112.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Feb 2024 10:54:06 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10984"; a="912094253" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,160,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="912094253" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Feb 2024 10:54:05 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1raKOQ-00000004ZyA-2MCF; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:54:02 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:54:02 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Thomas Zimmermann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] auxdisplay: Move cfag12864b.h to the subsystem folder Message-ID: References: <20240212132515.2660837-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20240212132515.2660837-4-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:50 PM Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > > > It's a standard practice in the Linux kernel development. > > If it's not a so critical issue, why should we rebase? > > > > rebasing will break SHA sums and it's not appreciated especially at the late > > rcX weeks. Linus can even refuse to accept a PR based on this fact. > > I am well aware of what rebasing does and the rules for PRs to Linus, thank you. > > First of all, you should have not applied the patch this quickly. > Nobody gave a tag for it and you yourself are the author. Even if > someone gave you a tag, 2 days is way too little time for something > like auxdisplay. 2 weeks would be a more reasonable time frame. > > The point is: you seem to be rejecting feedback on the basis that you > already applied a patch that you yourself authored 2 days ago. Not > good. > > Now, for branches in linux-next, what you should avoid is rebasing > wildly, but you can still do so if needed. If you are uncomfortable > with that, then you should avoid rushing patches to begin with so that > you don't have to do that. > > Regarding PRs to Linus, we are still in -rc4. There is plenty of time > to bake things in `linux-next`. Unless you meant to sent this to a -rc > release. But in that case: 1) there is no rush, 2) please see the > first point again. Okay, I dropped that patch from the queue. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko