Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1424258

Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64

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

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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