On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:49 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:40 AM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 08:34, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:34 AM Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:47, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Daniel, Dave,
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the first (and pretty late) drm-misc-next PR.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's pretty big due to the lateness, but there's nothing really major
> > > > > showing up. It's pretty much the usual bunch of reworks, fixes, and
> > > > > new helpers being introduced.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > dim: 415d2e9e0757 ("Revert "drm/gem: Rename drm_gem_dumb_map_offset()
> > > > to drm_gem_map_offset()""): mandatory review missing.
> > > > dim: be855382bacb ("Revert "drm/panfrost: Use drm_gem_map_offset()""):
> > > > mandatory review missing.
> > > > dim: e4eee93d2577 ("drm/vgem: drop DRM_AUTH usage from the driver"):
> > > > mandatory review missing.
> > > > dim: 88209d2c5035 ("drm/msm: drop DRM_AUTH usage from the driver"):
> > > > mandatory review missing.
> > > > dim: ccdae4257569 ("drm/nouveau: remove open-coded drm_invalid_op()"):
> > > > mandatory review missing.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty sure review in drm-misc-next is a rule. I don't even see acks
> > > > on most of these.
> > >
> > > Yes. I guess for reverts it's not cool, but also not the worst. Still
> > > better to get someone to ack, heck I can pull that off for emergency
> > > reverts with a few pings on irc, and the 2 reverts landed much later.
> > > But for normal patches it's definitely not ok at all. Also only
> > > possible if people bypass the tooling, or override the tooling with
> > > the -f flag to force a push.
> > >
> > > Rob, Emil, what's up here?
> > >
> > I've got was an "Thanks" [1] from Ben on the nouveau patch - so I merged it.
> > The msm and vgem ones are my bad - must have missed those one
> > inbetween the other patches.
>
> The thing is, dim push shouldn't allow you to do that. And the patches
> have clearly been applied with dim apply (or at least you added the
> Link), unlike Rob who seems to just have pushed the revert.
>
> If you used git push directly, then I guess you just volunteered to
> implement Daniel Stone's idea to enforce dim tooling. Adding Daniel,
> since I guess that was just an irc chat.
Helps if I actually add Daniel.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
