Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752082AbdL0RiW (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 12:38:22 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60544 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751043AbdL0RiV (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 12:38:21 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 11:38:19 -0600 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: Lukas Bulwahn Cc: Nick Desaulniers , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: Fix clang enum conversion warning Message-ID: <20171227173819.67iidrynd7jmmbmy@treble> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 17:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1575 Lines: 40 On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 01:34:34PM +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > 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. The patch from Lukas was the first one I received, so that's the one I used. I rewrote the commit msg for clarity and added my SOB and sent it to Ingo for merging. -- Josh