[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 10:09 AM Lucas De Marchi
<lucas.de.marchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

Humn... it has its own parser. So if I read
https://github.com/dlespiau/patchwork/blob/master/patchwork/parser.py#L36
correctly, it should be just a matter of omitting the "diff | ---"
lines (or prepending with a "#").

It does make things more difficult if the other person would use "git
am --scissors" though.


Lucas De Marchi

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



-- 
Lucas De Marchi