On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 06:13:46AM +0800, Christopher Li wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Strange. That is the only patch I found in my series. > > > > Well, it was the rigth patch in the sense that it had the right > > log message and stuff but the resulting diff was only correct > > within a 1 line context. With a 3 lines context 'git am' or > > a pure 'patch < ...' should have given a conflict as one of > > the patch that was initialy just after it > > (1856b3461 "fix killing OP_CAST & friends") made also some > > changes in the same lines and these two patch have now been > > exchanged. > > I see. So what happen is that the git am rejects it while > the patch program has not problem apply the patch. So I take > the patched version, which was wrong in terms of conflict resolution. > > I go through my logs, similar things happen in the following two commit. > > 684710647 testsuite: check patterns presence or absence in output > 49118f27e2 testsuite: check the nbr of times a pattern should be present > > "git am" initial rejects it but the patch program accepts it. > > Can you double check this two changes sounds correct to you? > I did take a second look, seems normal to me. I just checked, two chunks of the second of these patches are in another place than what I have here in my original tree but it's equivalent regarding functionality. Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
