On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:45:56PM +0530, Bhardwaj, Rajneesh wrote:
>
> On 07-Feb-19 9:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:06 AM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh
> > <rajneesh.bhardwaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 07-Feb-19 4:27 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > In commit
> > >
> > > 4284dc008f43 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Fix file permissions for ltr_show")
> > >
> > > Fixes tag
> > >
> > > Fixes: 63cde0c16c67 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Show Latency Tolerance info")
> > >
> > > has these problem(s):
> > >
> > > - Target SHA1 does not exist
> > >
> > > Did you mean:
> > >
> > > 2eb150558bb7 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Show Latency Tolerance info")
> > >
> > > Yes, upstream commit is 2eb150558bb79ee01c39b64c2868216c0be2904f. For some reason when i do git show on my repo with both these SHA1 i see the same patch.
> > >
> > > I will fix this in next version.
> > Hmm... this came to our published branch, i.e. for-next, would it be
> > better to update it via rebasing?
> >
> > Darren, what do you think?
>
> Hi Andy, I have corrected this in v2 anyway and i sent to upstream today,
> just in case you prefer it over rebasing.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10810123/
>
While we try hard not to rebase, if the choice is to rebase for-next or send a
bad commit to upstream, I will opt for the rebase.
Andy, I would suggest doing the rebase.
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
