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:   Tue, 7 May 2019 10:19:14 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Petr =?utf-8?Q?=C5=A0tetiar?= <ynezz@true.cz>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/4] of_get_mac_address ERR_PTR fixes
Message-ID: <20190507071914.GJ2269@kadam>
References: <1557177887-30446-1-git-send-email-ynezz@true.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1557177887-30446-1-git-send-email-ynezz@true.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:24:43PM +0200, Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this patch series is an attempt to fix the mess, I've somehow managed to
> introduce.
> 
> First patch in this series is defacto v5 of the previous 05/10 patch in the
> series, but since the v4 of this 05/10 patch wasn't picked up by the
> patchwork for some unknown reason, this patch wasn't applied with the other
> 9 patches in the series, so I'm resending it as a separate patch of this
> fixup series again.

I feel sort of ridiculous asking this over and over...  Maybe your spam
filter is eating my emails?

This bug was introduced in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1094916/
"[v4,01/10] of_net: add NVMEM support to of_get_mac_address" but it
looks like no one applied it.

You're acting as if it *was* applied but you refuse to answer my
question who applied it and which to which tree so I can figure out what
went wrong.

I only see comments from last Friday that it shouldn't be applied...  I
also told you on Friday in a different thread that that patch shouldn't
be applied.  Breaking git bisect is a bug, and we never do that.  I'm
just very confused right now...  What I'm trying to do is figure out in
my head how this process failed so we can do better next time.

regards,
dan carpenter