Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1424258
| From | Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 |
| Date | 2016-06-16 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rKIuK-2fo-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <rKD22-7fn-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <rKHoZ-1Bu-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <rKHIm-1K6-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rKIl3-2cb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rKIuJ-2fo-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:25:31PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:44:12PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:20:03PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >> > > I think it's time to ask now :) >> > > If I receive "Tested-by" or "Acked-by" responses, do I need to send >> > > out a patch adding them, or should I rely on the maintainer taking the >> > > patch to the tree? >> > > The first option reduces the amount of work done by the maintainer, >> > > while the second one reduces the traffic in the list. >> > > Sorry, I couldn't find the answer in the manuals. >> > >> > It's up to the maintainer, so it varies. The best thing to do is to ask >> > the maintainer what they'd prefer. >> > >> > From my experience, Catalin is usually happy to add tags, so I suspect >> > he'd be happy to do so for this patch (assuming he's happy to pick it >> > up). I'll leave it for him to say either way. >> >> I usually cherry-pick tags that I see in reply to the *latest* version >> of the patch (I have a rudimentary script to do this). >> >> I noticed that there was an ack on v1 form Marc Z that's missing in v2. > > I believe Marc's reply [1] was to v3 [2], it's just that the version was > missing form the subject, and discussions continued on v2 in the mean > time. Yes, this is correct. >> Maybe it no longer applies, I can't tell, but I usually expect >> subsequent versions of a patch to include all the previously given acks >> (of course, if they still apply, sometimes a patch rewrite means >> dropping those tags). > > I guess the simplest thing to do is for Alexander to send a v4 with the > tags accumulated, assuming James's Tested-by is applicable to v3 with > the boot/Makefile hunk removed. James? I think it's safe to assume James's Tested-by is still valid, as boot/Makefile hunk did virtually nothing. I'll send the new patch version now. > My ack stands. > > Thanks, > Mark. > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-June/436551.html > [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-June/436512.html -- Alexander Potapenko Software Engineer Google Germany GmbH Erika-Mann-Straße, 33 80636 München Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> - 2016-06-14 19:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> - 2016-06-14 19:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-06-14 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> - 2016-06-14 20:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-06-15 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-06-15 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> - 2016-06-15 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-06-15 16:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2016-06-15 16:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-06-15 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2016-06-15 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> - 2016-06-16 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> - 2016-06-16 17:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-06-16 17:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-06-16 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-06-16 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> - 2016-06-16 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> - 2016-06-16 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-06-16 18:40 +0200
csiph-web