On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 09:55:45AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ugh, this one flew right by me, and I never even caught it. And that > > was because it was sent To: the intel-gfx list, and only had a cc: for > > stable, much like all of the other i915 stable patches that you all want > > in stable trees, but are not yet included in your tree. > > I presume this is because git send-email automatically adds Cc's from > the patches, and Cc: stable is not an exception. Are you suggesting the > backport should've been sent To: stable, or that we should avoid Cc'ing > stable altogether when sending patches? The backport should have been "To:" stable, otherwise it really just looks like any other patch sent to the intel-gfx list, right? But I understand, I'm not grumpy about this one, thanks for the reminder, I'm glad to have backports and patches explicitly called out like this. > I feel like you're having a grumpy bias towards i915, and everything > about us ticks you off now. :( No, this one didn't at all, I was trying to apologize :) Only thing that makes me grumpy is all of the commits in the tree that don't apply at all as they are coming in through multiple trees/branches, like I have mentioned before. I would _love_ a list of patches I should be taking, or some kind of hint, to help me out here, as it is, the current workflow you all have right now isn't working for me at all. As proof of that, I have 35 patches in my "to-review" mbox for the i915 driver, and I really have no idea if they are going to apply or not, and at this point in time, I don't feel like digging through them as I have subsystems and patches from others that I know will work correctly and not require manual intervention from me... thanks, greg k-h