From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754595AbcFPQdg (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:33:36 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:45039 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752615AbcFPQdf (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:33:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:32:59 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Catalin Marinas , James Morse , Alexander Potapenko Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , marc.zyngier@arm.com, Will Deacon , LKML , Quentin Casasnovas , Kostya Serebryany , syzkaller , Christoffer Dall , Dmitriy Vyukov , Andrew Morton , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 Message-ID: <20160616163258.GA1459@leverpostej> References: <20160614175543.GA2468@leverpostej> <20160615092509.GA3984@leverpostej> <20160615114438.GC3984@leverpostej> <20160615142550.GA7971@leverpostej> <576283B9.9050900@arm.com> <20160616154412.GC31477@leverpostej> <20160616162531.GF18752@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160616162531.GF18752@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > 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? 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:32:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 In-Reply-To: <20160616162531.GF18752@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20160614175543.GA2468@leverpostej> <20160615092509.GA3984@leverpostej> <20160615114438.GC3984@leverpostej> <20160615142550.GA7971@leverpostej> <576283B9.9050900@arm.com> <20160616154412.GC31477@leverpostej> <20160616162531.GF18752@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20160616163258.GA1459@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. > 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? 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