Debian 15.1-1 changes

debian: Add m68k as non-coherent DMA architecture
debian: Mark libraries as Multi-Arch: same

Quoted 3 lines

debian: Add m68k as non-coherent DMA architecture
debian: Mark libraries as Multi-Arch: same

As Leon says, shouldn't these go on the mainline branch also?

Am Donnerstag, den 30.11.2017, 10:47 -0700 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:

Quoted 6 lines · Benjamin Drung

Quoted 3 lines

debian: Add m68k as non-coherent DMA architecture
debian: Mark libraries as Multi-Arch: same

As Leon says, shouldn't these go on the mainline branch also?

The complete patch set targets the master branch.

Quoted 6 lines

Am Donnerstag, den 30.11.2017, 10:47 -0700 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:

Quoted 5 lines · Benjamin Drung

Quoted 3 lines

debian: Add m68k as non-coherent DMA architecture
debian: Mark libraries as Multi-Arch: same

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 1 line

As Leon says, shouldn't these go on the mainline branch also?

The complete patch set targets the master branch.

Oh, I see how you working this, I saw them already applied to the debian branch and didn't quite get it :)

Looks fine to me

Am Donnerstag, den 30.11.2017, 11:58 -0700 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:

Quoted 11 lines · Benjamin Drung

Quoted 9 lines

Am Donnerstag, den 30.11.2017, 10:47 -0700 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:

Quoted 6 lines · Benjamin Drung

Quoted 3 lines

debian: Add m68k as non-coherent DMA architecture
debian: Mark libraries as Multi-Arch: same

As Leon says, shouldn't these go on the mainline branch also?

The complete patch set targets the master branch.

Quoted 4 lines

Oh, I see how you working this, I saw them already applied to the debian branch and didn't quite get it :)

Looks fine to me

Since you approved these change, may I do the rebase and merge to master or is that task restricted to certain people or workflows?

--
Benjamin Drung
System Developer
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

ProfitBricks GmbH
Greifswalder Str. 207
D - 10405 Berlin

Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.profitbricks.com

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin.
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 125506B. Geschäftsführer: Andreas Gauger, Achim Weiss.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Quoted 17 lines

Am Donnerstag, den 30.11.2017, 11:58 -0700 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:

Quoted 16 lines · Benjamin Drung

Quoted 11 lines

Am Donnerstag, den 30.11.2017, 10:47 -0700 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 2 lines · Benjamin Drung

debian: Add m68k as non-coherent DMA architecture
debian: Mark libraries as Multi-Arch: same

As Leon says, shouldn't these go on the mainline branch also?

The complete patch set targets the master branch.

Oh, I see how you working this, I saw them already applied to the debian branch and didn't quite get it :)

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 1 line

Looks fine to me

Since you approved these change, may I do the rebase and merge to master
or is that task restricted to certain people or workflows?

debian/* is yours, feel free to merge it.

GitHub does not allow to rebase & merge the pull request. Is there any reason to not allow the rebase & merge workflow? My commits are atomic and the git history is cleaner without the merge commits.

Quoted 3 lines · Benjamin Drung

GitHub does not allow to rebase & merge the pull request. Is there any reason to not allow the rebase & merge workflow? My commits are atomic and the git history is cleaner without the merge commits.

We have been using the merge workflow. I'm not sure this was every really discussed which is best or not.

The git history is simpler with rebase, but merge preserves the 'what did I test' and preserves the series boundaries, which are also useful things.

Jason

Quoted 5 lines · Jason Gunthorpe

Quoted 3 lines · Benjamin Drung

GitHub does not allow to rebase & merge the pull request. Is there any reason to not allow the rebase & merge workflow? My commits are atomic and the git history is cleaner without the merge commits.

Quoted 5 lines

We have been using the merge workflow. I'm not sure this was every really discussed which is best or not.

The git history is simpler with rebase, but merge preserves the 'what did I test' and preserves the series boundaries, which are also useful things.

We are also putting cover letters into the merge commit for documentation purposes.

Quoted 9 lines · Leon Romanovsky

Quoted 8 lines · Jason Gunthorpe

Quoted 3 lines · Benjamin Drung

GitHub does not allow to rebase & merge the pull request. Is there any reason to not allow the rebase & merge workflow? My commits are atomic and the git history is cleaner without the merge commits.

We have been using the merge workflow. I'm not sure this was every really discussed which is best or not.

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 2 lines

The git history is simpler with rebase, but merge preserves the 'what did I test' and preserves the series boundaries, which are also useful things.

We are also putting cover letters into the merge commit for documentation purposes.

Are we?

I wish github did that :(

On the plus side it does sign all
merge commits made through the web interface

commit 4925a85fc53f8f037a6792df450891340ee5a76b

gpg: Signature made Mon 20 Nov 2017 01:34:16 AM MST using RSA key ID 3AFDEB23
gpg: Good signature from "GitHub (web-flow commit signing) <noreply-9UaJU3cA/F/[email protected]>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 5DE3 E050 9C47 EA3C F04A  42D3 4AEE 18F8 3AFD EB23
Merge: 3d9b214443effe 9db80df802bf91
Author: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon Nov 20 10:34:16 2017 +0200

Merge pull request #254 from jgunthorpe/rdma_cm_mc

Support for the MC join flag in RDMA CM

Jason

Quoted 1 line

Are we?

Rarely,

Merge: cea6f4e0 e0ed9229
Author: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
Date: Thu Sep 28 16:58:57 2017 +0300

Merge branch 'jgunthorpe-new-init'

* jgunthorpe-new-init:
rxe: Use VERBS_NAME_MATCH to match the rxe device
hns: Use the generic modalias matcher
cxgb: Use the new common PCI matching infrastructure
providers: Use the new common PCI matching infrastructure
verbs: Provide common code to match providers against kernel devices
verbs: Remove the init_device entry point
providers: Use the new match_device and allocate_device ops
verbs: Split init_device into a match and alloc/bind step
cxgb4: Move sysconf up to driver_init
verbs: Change verbs_register_driver to accept the ops struct directly

Quoted 1 line

I wish github did that :(

Github is doing it, it will help if PR authors place cover letter in their PR.

Quoted 23 lines · Leon Romanovsky

Quoted 1 line

Are we?

Rarely,

Merge: cea6f4e0 e0ed9229
Author: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
Date: Thu Sep 28 16:58:57 2017 +0300

Merge branch 'jgunthorpe-new-init'

* jgunthorpe-new-init:
rxe: Use VERBS_NAME_MATCH to match the rxe device
hns: Use the generic modalias matcher
cxgb: Use the new common PCI matching infrastructure
providers: Use the new common PCI matching infrastructure
verbs: Provide common code to match providers against kernel devices
verbs: Remove the init_device entry point
providers: Use the new match_device and allocate_device ops
verbs: Split init_device into a match and alloc/bind step
cxgb4: Move sysconf up to driver_init
verbs: Change verbs_register_driver to accept the ops struct directly

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 1 line

I wish github did that :(

Github is doing it, it will help if PR authors place cover letter in their PR.

How do you do that? I always write a letter in the PR?

Jason