Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:34:28 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>, kbuild@lists.01.org,
        lkp@intel.com, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: remove redundant assignment to variable x
Message-ID: <20200416083427.GK1163@kadam>
References: <20200414092359.GC1163@kadam>
 <43eb0cbb-9bf0-c99a-470d-8121c3108a5e@canonical.com>
 <87blnt5d7j.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87blnt5d7j.fsf@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:07:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020, Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I'd post a revert, but I don't seem to see an upstream commit for this
> > this to revert against. What's the revert policy in these cases? Or can
> > the patch be just ignored by the maintainers so it's not applied?
> 
> It has not been applied, and will be ignored, in part thanks to the
> report.
> 
> However I think Dan's report is misleading in that it looks like it's
> about a commit while I think it should emphasize that it's a pre-merge
> report on the patch on the mailing list.
> 

To be honest, these are auto-generated by the kbuild bot and I was a bit
confused myself.

regards,
dan carpenter