[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: fix guest virtual PCH detection on non-PCH systems

[Arkadiusz Hiler]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:34 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 31 May 2018, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 02:56:21PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> >> Virtualized non-PCH systems such as Broxton or Geminilake should use
> >> >> PCH_NONE to indicate no PCH rather than PCH_NOP. The latter is a
> >> >> specific case to indicate a PCH system without south display.
> >> >
> >> > Then let's go ahead and document it?
> >>
> >> Please avoid sending suggestion patches in-reply-to existing
> >> series. This confused patchwork and screwed up CI for the series, which
> >> was already a resend just to get CI. :(
> >
> > ugh, sorry.  Sometimes just adding a oneline diff is much better than
> > a hundred words explaining :( ...
> 
> I feel you, a patch is more precise.
> 
> > IMO pw is trying to be smarter than it should here or not being smart
> > enough. Nonetheless I won't do that anymore.
> 
> I think there were earlier complaints about what it did recognize and
> what it didn't. I'd be open to only accepting new versions of patches
> from whoever sent the original patch. Or requiring patch subjects don't
> start with "Re:". Or both.

No matter what you do here it will misbehave in some scenarios and
break someone's workflow :<

Originally we required the patches to have X-Mailer set to
git-send-email, which seems reasonable, but that annoyed people because
their servers were stripping out those headers.

Other people send out the patches by feeding them to the drafts folder
through IMAP and then sending them out. This, depending on the
provider's configuration, also gobbles up a thing or two.

Because of the above I am not sure about trusting "Re:" and matching
"From:" headers as good enough indicators either.

It just adds more opaque "smartness". I already can foresee questions
asking "why my v2 was not picked up?" and someone would have to debug it
down the line.

Was the address different (+XYZ before @)? Has that someone used
--subject-prefix=re:? Is it an actual bug? Etc.


> I was annoyed, but I'm perhaps more annoyed that you can't do this
> without confusing patchwork. In the end, I wouldn't want to hamper
> review by blocking something that comes naturally to people.
> 
> Arek?

Just add the following header:
"X-Patchwork-Hint: comment"
to emails that you type out manually.

For mutt it's as easy as adding:
"my_hdr X-Patchwork-Hint: comment"
to your .muttrc

https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/commit/148f10115525

-- 
Cheers,
Arek