On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:40 AM Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
> > > > 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.
Okay, I do it right now then,
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
