On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 03:19:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Ville Syrj?l? > <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:57:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 01:23:05PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > >> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:50:15 +0200 > >> > ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote: > >> > > >> > > From: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > >> > >> Fails to apply here somehow. Also, this thing is base64 encoded, which > >> confused my normal workflow for a bit ... Dunno what exactly caused this > >> havoc. > > > > Strange. I had it sitting on top of drm-intel-next when I sent it. > > > > The whole series seems to be base64 after I got it back from the list. > > Maybe it's out wonderful mail system trying to do something clever. > > Base64 itself shouldn't disturb git-am & co. > > Yeah, git am coped fine, but patch was a bit upset. I've then feed it > the decoded text/plain part, which resulted in some strange conflicts. > Dunno what has happened there. Can you simply resend a new patch > rebased on top of latest dinq? Will do. -- Ville Syrj?l? Intel OTC
