On Tuesday, April 5th, 2022 at 16:39, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/4/22 23:26, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > > On 4/5/22 08:12, Simon Ser wrote: > > > > > On Monday, April 4th, 2022 at 23:35, Randy Dunlap rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/4/22 09:04, Simon Ser wrote: > > > > > > > > > Both doc patches pushed, thanks. I had to manually edit them because they > > > > > wouldn't apply cleanly. Next time, please use git-send-email (see > > > > > https://git-send-email.io/ for setup instructions). > > > > > > > > That's odd. I did use 'git send-email' and I don't usually have any > > > > problems (AFAIK). I'll check those setup instructions. > > > > > > Hm, maybe the issue isn't git-send-email, but the way the patch was > > > generated? I had to manually edit these lines for the first patch to work: > > > > > > --- linux-next-20211217.orig/include/drm/drm_file.h > > > +++ linux-next-20211217/include/drm/drm_file.h > > > > > > I changed these to: > > > > > > --- a/include/drm/drm_file.h > > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h > > > > > > This wasn't enough for the second patch, I had to re-do the changes by hand > > > from scratch. > > > > Yes, I believe the suggestion should be to use git-format-patch instead. > > > > To make sure that was is posted can be consumed by the git-am command. > > > Considering that I am not using git, I think it will be difficult > to use git-format-patch. Ah, okay. Would you consider using Git for you next patches? (FYI, I'll pass next time I hit a patch which doesn't apply cleanly. Nothing personal, it's just that I don't have time to deal with broken patches.)
