2019-07-29 21:06:22

by Brian Norris

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: platform: return -ENXIO for missing GpioInt

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 1:54 PM Nathan Chancellor
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:49:54PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Side note: it might have helped alleviate some of this pain if there
> > were email notifications to the mailing list when a patch gets applied.
> > I didn't realize (and I'm not sure if Enrico did) that v2 was already
> > merged by the time I noted its mistakes. If I had known, I would have
> > suggested a follow-up patch, not a v3.
>
> I've found this to be fairly reliable for getting notified when
> something gets applied if it is a tree that shows up in -next.
>
> https://www.kernel.org/get-notifications-for-your-patches.html

I didn't send the original patch. I was only debugging/reviewing
someone else's patch, and jumped in after its authorship (as it hit
issues in our own CI system). So it was more of a "drive-by" scenario,
and it doesn't sound like that page addresses this situation.

Brian


2019-07-29 21:11:32

by Enrico Granata

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: platform: return -ENXIO for missing GpioInt

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:03 PM Brian Norris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 1:54 PM Nathan Chancellor
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:49:54PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > Side note: it might have helped alleviate some of this pain if there
> > > were email notifications to the mailing list when a patch gets applied.
> > > I didn't realize (and I'm not sure if Enrico did) that v2 was already
> > > merged by the time I noted its mistakes. If I had known, I would have
> > > suggested a follow-up patch, not a v3.
> >
> > I've found this to be fairly reliable for getting notified when
> > something gets applied if it is a tree that shows up in -next.
> >
> > https://www.kernel.org/get-notifications-for-your-patches.html
>
> I didn't send the original patch. I was only debugging/reviewing
> someone else's patch, and jumped in after its authorship (as it hit
> issues in our own CI system). So it was more of a "drive-by" scenario,
> and it doesn't sound like that page addresses this situation.
>
> Brian

Your assessment sounds about right - I suspect the tl;dr is that *I*
(the original patch author) should have subscribed to that bot, so I
could figure out that v2 had already merged, and done the right thing
sending out a follow-up CL once you brought the issue to my attention.