Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the drivers-x86 tree
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20190207095703.564e76b2@canb.auug.org.au>
 <38152c55-c2c1-c89f-2751-0ef0d40fcba9@linux.intel.com>
 <CAHp75Vf6gs1342N16MZHvPmiiv3+xJyMyyJQK677KPZbb_7Vrg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Bhardwaj, Rajneesh" <rajneesh.bhardwaj@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <e0c40627-f1a2-254f-14b0-b9df0d62dd34@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 20:45:56 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vf6gs1342N16MZHvPmiiv3+xJyMyyJQK677KPZbb_7Vrg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 07-Feb-19 9:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 AM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh
> <rajneesh.bhardwaj@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 07-Feb-19 4:27 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In commit
>>
>>    4284dc008f43 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Fix file permissions for ltr_show")
>>
>> Fixes tag
>>
>>    Fixes: 63cde0c16c67 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Show Latency Tolerance info")
>>
>> has these problem(s):
>>
>>    - Target SHA1 does not exist
>>
>> Did you mean:
>>
>>    2eb150558bb7 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Show Latency Tolerance info")
>>
>> Yes, upstream commit is 2eb150558bb79ee01c39b64c2868216c0be2904f. For some reason when i do git show on my repo with both these SHA1 i see the same patch.
>>
>> I will fix this in next version.
> Hmm... this came to our published branch, i.e. for-next, would it be
> better to update it via rebasing?
>
> Darren, what do you think?

Hi Andy, I have corrected this in v2 anyway and i sent to upstream 
today, just in case you prefer it over rebasing.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10810123/


>