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

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:11 AM Arkadiusz Hiler
<arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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

This may not work for the same reasons you pointed out that wouldn't
work if people are sending patches.  Is there a format I can use that
will not trigger patchwork from parsing a _reply_? Does removing the
"--------" help? Under the hood does it use git am --scissors or
similar?


Lucas De Marchi

>
> https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/commit/148f10115525
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Arek



-- 
Lucas De Marchi