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;
Date:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:59:41 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     Solomon Tan <solomonbstoner@protonmail.ch>
Cc:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "acme@kernel.org" <acme@kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "suzuki.poulose@arm.com" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        "alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com" 
        <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        "jolsa@redhat.com" <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        "namhyung@kernel.org" <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        "robert.walker@arm.com" <robert.walker@arm.com>,
        "acme@redhat.com" <acme@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] perf tools: Add missing case value
Message-ID: <20190322015935.GA29608@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <iXDQnAbT-yValKlLnwDyoyBCwymrdxjykuMsgI4Cxau_e2ib9QYVroNDbJgZz3kuxTTaPJnyzRWmEY0TpEZDVQBSdElz9K9R0tAz79Qkp2s=@protonmail.ch>
 <20190321162702.GA24451@xps15>
 <vZ4GE7nXgr7nfrMHj_pp8qu6onE8B7YfoczBpbm9RA8spzbqAoEmAIT_YJXkGFXgK8tJqLdVBW_1D9D4jQ2Um51V7SWi1ZgIjrMaYxEYzqg=@protonmail.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <vZ4GE7nXgr7nfrMHj_pp8qu6onE8B7YfoczBpbm9RA8spzbqAoEmAIT_YJXkGFXgK8tJqLdVBW_1D9D4jQ2Um51V7SWi1ZgIjrMaYxEYzqg=@protonmail.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Solomon,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:47:11AM +0000, Solomon Tan wrote:

[...]

> > On my side this patch is no different from V3, i.e it doesn't pass checkpatch
> > and it doesn't apply on my next tree.
> >
> > Mathieu
> >
> > >
> >
> > pub RSA 2048/C88289A6 2018-05-09solomonbstoner@protonmail.ch solomonbstoner@protonmail.ch
> >
> > > sub RSA 2048/7C5E8D6D 2018-05-09
> 
> I created a new branch from `next` for the patch mentioned above. Should I
> have made the patch directly on the `next` branch instead?
> 
> I ran the following 2 commands to test the files I edited:
> ```
> perl scripts/checkpatch.pl -f tools/build/feature/test-libopencsd.c
> perl scripts/checkpatch.pl -f tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c
> ```
> The commands reported that the files "has no obvious style problems and is ready
> for submission." For your kind advice please. Thank you.

Suggest you to use below flow for sending patch:

- git format HEAD~1: generate patch
- ./scripts/checkpatch.pl xxxx.patch: check patch format
- git send-email xxxx.patch: use git to send patch so avoid any
  unexpected characters in the mail

P.s. Marc has a good presentation [1] for upstreaming patches, you
could check page 16 for how to use the git tool.

[1] https://elinux.org/images/2/26/Getting-Your-Patches-in-Mainline-Linux-What-Not-To-Do-and-a-Few-Things-You-Could-Try-Instead-Marc-Zyngier-ARM.pdf

Thanks,
Leo Yan