Hi Mauro, Thanks for reviewing this series, I've just pushed it. On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 14:53:48 CEST Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Hi Janusz, > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 11:53:44 +0200 > Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It seems that there is a numeration issue on this series, as the patches > on it are: > > [PATCH i-g-t 1/3] tests/gem_exec_fence: Fix wrong engine checked for store_dword capability > [PATCH i-g-t v2 2/3] tests/gem_exec_fence: Exclude 0 from use in store batches > [PATCH i-g-t v3 3/3] tests/gem_exec_fence: Restore pre-hang checks in *await-hang scenarios > > Maybe some broken script? It is also missing a cover letter. That was not a script, I provided version numbers of individual patches manually, and not provided any cover letter. First patch was a small fix, not directly related to the two others. Second patch was a small enhancement, also not directly related to the third one. However, the third one depended on the two for clean apply, and that was the only reason for me sending them in series. That said, let me ask, based on your huge upstream experience, what are your preferences on patch version tagging if one is going to submit a series with new versions of some patches while still including some other that don't need to be changed? Should all be marked as new (and the same) versions? Thanks, Janusz
