> -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Damien Lespiau > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:44 PM > To: Antoine, Peter > Cc: 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/ [He, Shuang] PRTS is treating each one as a single patch Thanks --Shuang > > 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-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
