On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 09:55:45AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > 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. Thanks for the clarification, and for picking the patch up now. >> 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 :) Auch, does my negative reading of your mail mean I have a reverse grumpy bias about you instead?! :) > 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. It's sad because the workflow really does work well for *us*. But we hear you, and we haven't forgotten about your complaints. We'll figure this out. Thanks, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center