[Intel-gfx] [PULL] drm-misc-next

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 06:01:46PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:33:53AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:47, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Daniel, Dave,
> > >
> > > Here is the first (and pretty late) drm-misc-next PR.
> > >
> > > It's pretty big due to the lateness, but there's nothing really major
> > > showing up. It's pretty much the usual bunch of reworks, fixes, and
> > > new helpers being introduced.
> >
> > dim: 415d2e9e0757 ("Revert "drm/gem: Rename drm_gem_dumb_map_offset()
> > to drm_gem_map_offset()""): mandatory review missing.
> > dim: be855382bacb ("Revert "drm/panfrost: Use drm_gem_map_offset()""):
> > mandatory review missing.
> > dim: e4eee93d2577 ("drm/vgem: drop DRM_AUTH usage from the driver"):
> > mandatory review missing.
> > dim: 88209d2c5035 ("drm/msm: drop DRM_AUTH usage from the driver"):
> > mandatory review missing.
> > dim: ccdae4257569 ("drm/nouveau: remove open-coded drm_invalid_op()"):
> > mandatory review missing.
> >
> > Pretty sure review in drm-misc-next is a rule. I don't even see acks
> > on most of these.
> 
> Ugh, sorry for that. I guess I'm still pretty new to the
> maintainer-side of dim, which commands did you use to check that?

dim apply-pull does this. If all committers use the tooling as they should
they shouldn't be able to push patches which violate anything here, that's
why dim request-pull doesn't reject. We're now working on patches to make
sure you really have to use dim for managing drm-misc and applying
patches.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch