No problem. Will sequence them when I re-submit. -----Original Message----- From: Lespiau, Damien Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:44 PM To: Antoine, Peter Cc: Daniel Vetter; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Kernel Crash in drm_unlock On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:38:15PM +0100, Antoine, Peter wrote: > Patch ordering, is deliberate. They are not dependent on each other. > I'll rebase and add the new dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx when is > resubmit the patches. Ah, well, huummm. That is something new and innovative for sure. I haven't seen any precedent for this one. I'd rather we always do the same thing to makes tools easier to write on top of the upstream mailing-list centered process, otherwise it'll be painful. For instance is PRTS going to cope? patchwork now sees all the patches as 1/3: http://patchwork.lespiau.name/series/1290/ We could make the tool understand that, but I believe it'll be much easier if we stick to the somewhat established conventions. HTH, -- Damien --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation (UK) Limited Registered No. 1134945 (England) Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
