On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:32 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:17 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 09:19:32AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 05 Mar 2021, Roland Scheidegger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The vmwgfx ones look all good to me, so for > > > > > > 23-53: Reviewed-by: Roland Scheidegger <sroland@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > That said, they were already signed off by Zack, so not sure what > > > > > > happened here. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, they were accepted at one point, then dropped without a reason. > > > > > > > > > > Since I rebased onto the latest -next, I had to pluck them back out of > > > > > a previous one. > > > > > > > > They should show up in linux-next again. We merge patches for next merge > > > > window even during the current merge window, but need to make sure they > > > > don't pollute linux-next. Occasionally the cut off is wrong so patches > > > > show up, and then get pulled again. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately especially the 5.12 merge cycle was very wobbly due to some > > > > confusion here. But your patches should all be in linux-next again (they > > > > are queued up for 5.13 in drm-misc-next, I checked that). > > > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion here. > > > > > > Oh, I see. Well so long as they don't get dropped, I'll be happy. > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation Daniel > > > > After rebasing today, all of my GPU patches have remained. Would > > someone be kind enough to check that everything is still in order > > please? > > It's still broken somehow. I've kiced Maxime and Maarten again, > they're also on this thread. You're patches have made it into drm-next meanwhile, so they should show up in linux-next through that tree at least. Except if that one also has some trouble. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
