Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751895AbdL0Me7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 07:34:59 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f174.google.com ([209.85.128.174]:39275 "EHLO mail-wr0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751856AbdL0Me6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 07:34:58 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovnewUiIp2fvgYwa9j5hgh+WulbLTjj6azEXbuB/oKfisdnXSjE9fZUT4xxp3ARWoagl3avEA== From: Lukas Bulwahn X-Google-Original-From: Lukas Bulwahn Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:34:34 +0100 (CET) To: Nick Desaulniers cc: Josh Poimboeuf , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lukas Bulwahn , Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: Fix clang enum conversion warning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1282 Lines: 34 On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > I sent a similar one recently: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10131815/ (maybe Josh is just > forwarding me an earlier fix?) > > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers > I actually submitted this (other) patch to LKML on 2017-12-10: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10103977/ I also pointed this out on the llvmlinux mailing list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/2017-December/001535.html (The mail might not have been distributed yet to its recipients, because I am on the llvmlinux mailing list only for a few days, and I might have not been whitelisted for getting through the spam filtering of that list.) Nick submitted another patch to LKML on 2017-12-24 (see above). The source code change is the same; but the commit message was different. Now the third patch from Josh here is another equal patch with yet another commit message, combining information from both patches. Assuming that the authorship of this one-line change does not matter, as it is largely suggested by the clang compiler anyway, and we want to move the change forward, we should decide on which of three patches to move forward. I can give my Reviewed-by and Tested-by to any of them. Lukas