On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 07:26:54PM +0530, Kanak Shilledar wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 10:34 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 03:09:44PM +0530, Kanak Shilledar wrote: > > > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 1:02 AM Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > By "this patch" it means that having the information in the cover > > doesn't help, but info about missing deps should go under the --- line > > etc. > > I am still unable to get this part. I don't see there is any dependency > other than the two patches dependent on each other. In my cover letter > I have mentioned that the two patches are dependent on each other. That's fine, then you didn't do anything wrong in that regard. Sometimes however, other series have a dependency on other series, which is what that text was talking about. > > | base-commit: 20cb38a7af88dc40095da7c2c9094da3873fea23 > > | prerequisite-patch-id: 158157d32a32e765834a0cb4fc6335f9009d9962 > > | prerequisite-patch-id: 4007c7386e66f93b67a2631dddca08cadcee708b > > > > That said, why do you have two prerequisite patches? This applies on top > > of 6.9-rc3 without any issues (other than trailing whitespace warnings). > > For generation the patches I am using the command: > `git format-patch -2 -o outgoing/ --cover-letter --base=auto` > It is automatically adding those two preqrequisite-patch-ids > automatically along with the base-commit id. > Is it due to the fact that I am having 2 older patches which I have > rolled out already? Shall I remove those > prerequisite patch id from the coverletter to solve this issue? If they're not related to what you're working on, then yes. --base=auto probably picked the last tagged commit, but the applier of these patches doesn't need to care about the other (unrelated) patches in your tree so having them is just a potential source of confusion.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
