From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754340AbcFPQgR (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:36:17 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53]:35640 "EHLO mail-lf0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752615AbcFPQgQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:36:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20160616163258.GA1459@leverpostej> From: Alexander Potapenko Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:36:08 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64 To: Mark Rutland Cc: Catalin Marinas , James Morse , 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Mark Rutland 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