lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ARM: head-common.S: Clear lr before jumping to start_kernel()
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:25:50AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:33:25PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> > > * Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> [171003 11:32]:
>> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> > > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> > > > >> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > > > >>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > > > >>> Please send it to RMK's patch system.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Done (I hope so ;-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Failed. Retrying.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yiha ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=8702/1
>> > >
>> > > This also fixes the spamming I started seeing with next-20171009:
>> > >
>> > > Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>> >
>> > It's all nice and good that people are testing this patch, but I can't
>> > apply it to -rc1, nor my "misc" branch. It appears that this is due
>> > to patches going through other trees.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I can't take this patch.
>>
>> It should go into your devel-testing branch as this must be applied on
>> top of my xip_zdata branch that you merged there.
>
> Thanks, it would've been good to have known that ahead of time.
>
> It's why the patch system has the KernelVersion: tag:
>
> 6. Kernel version.
> On a separate line, add a tag "KernelVersion: " followed by the kernel
> version that the patch was generated against. This should be formatted
> as "KernelVersion: 2.6.0-rmk1"
>
> This is because that information is relevant for knowing where it should
> be applied, and to which branch. Having it be something else means I
> have to guess, and that can result in the patch being discarded in this
> manner if I don't find where it's supposed to be applied.

That's why we have the standard Fixes tag, which was included
Fixes: 9520b1a1b5f7a348 ("ARM: head-common.S: speed up startup code")

It's trivial for the repo maintainer to know which branch the fix to apply to,
given the Fixes tag.
It's non-trivial to know the branch for the patch submitter, who is forced to
use a non-standard patch submission system.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-15 10:04    [W:0.100 / U:7.392 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site