Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On 2023-11-24 08:20, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Luben Tuikov wrote: >> On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> Hi Luben, >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: >> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can >>> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by >>> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was >>> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with >>> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much >>> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears >>> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that >>> needs the changes. >>> >>> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( >> >> Hi Stephen, >> >> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the >> future. >> Thanks again! :-) > > In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the > drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next. > > We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to > ask us :) > > Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you > use it? Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a very clear warning if you bypass it). If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to fix. >>> >>> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we >>> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen >>> again >>> >>> Maxime >> >> There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in. > > Wait what? > > What do you mean by forcing the commit in? Bypass dim? > > If yes, please *never* do that when you're dealing with dim managed > branches. That's part of the deal for getting commit access, along with > following all the other maintainer tools documentation. Hi Jani, I only use dim, ever. -- Regards, Luben OpenPGP_0x4C15479431A334AF.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Luben Tuikov wrote: > On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> Hi Luben, >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: > On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can >> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by >> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was >> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with >> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much >> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears >> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that >> needs the changes. >> >> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( > > Hi Stephen, > > Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the > future. > Thanks again! :-) In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next. We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to ask us :) Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you use it? >>> >>> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying >>> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own >>> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by >>> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a >>> very clear warning if you bypass it). >>> >>> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to >>> fix. >> >> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we >> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen >> again >> >> Maxime > > There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in. Wait what? What do you mean by forcing the commit in? Bypass dim? If yes, please *never* do that when you're dealing with dim managed branches. That's part of the deal for getting commit access, along with following all the other maintainer tools documentation. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Luben, > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that > needs the changes. > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( Hi Stephen, Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks again! :-) >>> >>> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the >>> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next. >>> >>> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to >>> ask us :) >>> >>> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you >>> use it? >> >> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying >> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own >> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by >> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a >> very clear warning if you bypass it). >> >> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to >> fix. > > It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we > improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen > again > > Maxime There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in. -- Regards, Luben OpenPGP_0x4C15479431A334AF.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
Hi Luben, On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > > On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can > > > > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by > > > > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was > > > > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with > > > > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much > > > > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears > > > > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that > > > > needs the changes. > > > > > > > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( > > > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > > > Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the > > > future. > > > Thanks again! :-) > > > > In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the > > drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next. > > > > We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to > > ask us :) > > > > Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you > > use it? > > Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying > patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own > development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by > the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a > very clear warning if you bypass it). > > If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to > fix. It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen again Maxime signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On 2023-11-16 04:22, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:56:32PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>> On 2023-11-13 21:45, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Luben,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:32:40 -0500 Luben Tuikov wrote:
On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Commit
>>
>> 0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
>>
>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>>
>
> In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver,
> those changes
> were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes,
> but which
> wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
>
> I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and
> drm-misc-fixes,
> when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I
> can apply
... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next,
so that I can apply...
> the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.
The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in
drm-misc-next.
When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever
way
it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the
changes
for Xe.
>>>
>>> None of that is relevant ... if you commit a patch to a tree that will
>>> be in the linux kernel tree, you must add your Signed-off-by to the commit.
>>
>> Noted!
>>
>> So I always do this when I do git-am and such, but wasn't sure for this one
>> single cherry-pick whose
>> original author was the committer in drm-misc-fixes, but will add my
>> Signed-off-by in those
>> rare circumstances.
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification!
>
> In order to move forward with this, can you provide your SoB here for
> that patch so that we can at least point to it in the drm-misc-next PR?
>
> Maxime
Signed-off-by: Luben Tuikov
--
Regards,
Luben
OpenPGP_0x4C15479431A334AF.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:56:32PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-11-13 21:45, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Luben,
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:32:40 -0500 Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >>> On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Commit
>
> 0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>
> >>>
> >>> In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver,
> >>> those changes
> >>> were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes,
> >>> but which
> >>> wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and
> >>> drm-misc-fixes,
> >>> when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I
> >>> can apply
> >>
> >> ... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next,
> >> so that I can apply...
> >>
> >>> the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.
> >>
> >> The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
> >> in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in
> >> drm-misc-next.
> >> When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever
> >> way
> >> it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the
> >> changes
> >> for Xe.
> >
> > None of that is relevant ... if you commit a patch to a tree that will
> > be in the linux kernel tree, you must add your Signed-off-by to the commit.
>
> Noted!
>
> So I always do this when I do git-am and such, but wasn't sure for this one
> single cherry-pick whose
> original author was the committer in drm-misc-fixes, but will add my
> Signed-off-by in those
> rare circumstances.
>
> Thanks for the clarification!
In order to move forward with this, can you provide your SoB here for
that patch so that we can at least point to it in the drm-misc-next PR?
Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can > > > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by > > > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was > > > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with > > > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much > > > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears > > > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that > > > needs the changes. > > > > > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the > > future. > > Thanks again! :-) > > In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the > drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next. > > We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to > ask us :) > > Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you > use it? Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a very clear warning if you bypass it). If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to fix. Also backmerges (and in generally anything that is about cross-tree patch wrangling, like cherry-picking) are maintainer duties in drm-misc and not for committers: https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/maintainer-drm-misc.html#maintainer-s-duties I think it'd be really good for Luben to go through the docs and supply a patch to clarify this, if it's not clear from the existing docs. We have some wording in the committer docs, but maybe it's not clear enough: https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer-drm-misc.html#merge-criteria "Any non-linear actions (backmerges, merging topic branches and sending out pull requests) are only done by the official drm-misc maintainers (see MAINTAINERS, or ask #dri-devel), and not by committers. See the examples section in dim for more info" Minor screw-ups like this gives us a great opportunity to improve the tooling, let's use it. Cheers, Sima -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: > On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can > > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by > > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was > > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with > > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much > > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears > > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that > > needs the changes. > > > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( > > Hi Stephen, > > Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the > future. > Thanks again! :-) In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next. We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to ask us :) Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you use it? Maxime signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Luben, > > BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can > cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by > the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was > cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with > these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much > better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears > once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that > needs the changes. > > I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( Hi Stephen, Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks again! :-) -- Regards, Luben OpenPGP_0x4C15479431A334AF.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
Hi Luben, BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that needs the changes. I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpOiFluMmljx.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On 2023-11-13 21:45, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Luben,
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:32:40 -0500 Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Commit
0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>>>
>>> In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those
>>> changes
>>> were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but
>>> which
>>> wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
>>>
>>> I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and
>>> drm-misc-fixes,
>>> when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I
>>> can apply
>>
>> ... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, so
>> that I can apply...
>>
>>> the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.
>>
>> The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
>> in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in drm-misc-next.
>> When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever
>> way
>> it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the
>> changes
>> for Xe.
>
> None of that is relevant ... if you commit a patch to a tree that will
> be in the linux kernel tree, you must add your Signed-off-by to the commit.
Hi Stephen,
Noted!
So I always do this when I do git-am and such, but wasn't sure for this one
single cherry-pick whose
original author was the committer in drm-misc-fixes, but will add my
Signed-off-by in those
rare circumstances.
Thanks for the clarification!
--
Regards,
Luben
OpenPGP_0x4C15479431A334AF.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
Hi Luben,
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:32:40 -0500 Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Commit
> >>
> >> 0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
> >>
> >> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >>
> >
> > In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those
> > changes
> > were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but
> > which
> > wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
> >
> > I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and
> > drm-misc-fixes,
> > when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I
> > can apply
>
> ... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, so
> that I can apply...
>
> > the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.
>
> The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
> in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in drm-misc-next.
> When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever way
> it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the
> changes
> for Xe.
None of that is relevant ... if you commit a patch to a tree that will
be in the linux kernel tree, you must add your Signed-off-by to the commit.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpeJfWzDw5CV.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On 2023-11-13 20:08, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Commit
>>
>> 0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
>>
>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>>
>
> In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those
> changes
> were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but
> which
> wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
>
> I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and
> drm-misc-fixes,
> when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I can
> apply
... when pulling that change from from drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, so
that I can apply...
> the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.
The change in drm-misc-fixes is b83ce9cb4a465b. The latter is contained
in linus-master, and in drm-misc-fixes, while the former is in drm-misc-next.
When we merge linus-master/drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next, or whichever way
it happens, I'd like to avoid a merge conflict, but wanted to expedite the
changes
for Xe.
--
Regards,
Luben
OpenPGP_0x4C15479431A334AF.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-misc tree
On 2023-11-13 15:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Commit
>
> 0da611a87021 ("dma-buf: add dma_fence_timestamp helper")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>
In order to merge the scheduler changes necessary for the Xe driver, those
changes
were based on drm-tip, which included this change from drm-misc-fixes, but which
wasn't present in drm-misc-next.
I didn't want to create a merge conflict between drm-misc-next and
drm-misc-fixes,
when pulling that change from drm-misc-next to drm-misc-fixes, so that I can
apply
the Xe scheduler changes on top of drm-misc-next.
--
Regards,
Luben
OpenPGP_0x4C15479431A334AF.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
