Hi Simon, On 4/5/22 08:05, Simon Ser wrote: > 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 quilt (which I am using) can generate a/ b/ patches instead of linux.orig/ and linux/ patches. >>>> This wasn't enough for the second patch, I had to re-do the changes by hand >>>> from scratch. I would like more information about this one if it's not too much trouble for you. >>> 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? Don't know. It's quite a big hurdle to jump over IMO. > (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.) Yeah, I get it. thanks. -- ~Randy
