Conor Dooley
Posts
467Following
143Followers
151I like cycling, powerlifting, bad video games and metal.
Otherwise, I occupy my time with various bits in RISC-V land.
~useless, placeholder, website: https://www.conchuod.ie/
@krzk I think you probably guessed correctly in the thread, and it is a bit of feeling patronised. The various bot-like replies do seem a bit impersonal, but if you are experienced enough to feel patronised, you're experienced enough to understand why the bot-like/form-letters are required.
2
0
2
Conor Dooley
repeated
repeated
Palmer Dabbelt
palmer
Vector uABI thread on sw-dev: https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/sw-dev/c/9CI304vHtMo
1
3
4
Conor Dooley
conor
You think you're gonna sit down and get something done for once, and then CI failures left right and centre :)
0
0
2
@pdp7 @palmer If you don't like the template being there, you can always write a b4-cover-template file & point to it with `b4.prep-cover-template` in your git config (see https://b4.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/config.html#contributor-settings).
The default is:
```
${cover}
---
${shortlog}
${diffstat}
---
base-commit: ${base_commit}
change-id: ${change_id}
Best regards,
--
${signature}
```
The default is:
```
${cover}
---
${shortlog}
${diffstat}
---
base-commit: ${base_commit}
change-id: ${change_id}
Best regards,
--
${signature}
```
1
0
1
@matttbe @kernellogger checkpatch isn't an arbiter of truth to begin with, especially in arch code it reports a bunch of spurious stuff.
I was just a bit annoyed by it the other day when checkpatch complained, telling me that I should have a Closes: pointing to a competing patch for a problem.
I guess I had had it in my head that what was accepted was going to allow Reported-by: followed by Link: & complain only about "bare" Reported-by:.
> it is similar to the previous situation where there are cases where it doesn't even make sense to have a Link tag after a Reported-by.
Yah, that's probably fair.
I was just a bit annoyed by it the other day when checkpatch complained, telling me that I should have a Closes: pointing to a competing patch for a problem.
I guess I had had it in my head that what was accepted was going to allow Reported-by: followed by Link: & complain only about "bare" Reported-by:.
> it is similar to the previous situation where there are cases where it doesn't even make sense to have a Link tag after a Reported-by.
Yah, that's probably fair.
0
0
1
@kernellogger @matttbe I would like to make my CI stuff entirely ignore that tag, complaint, but I don't immediately see an ignore.
0
0
0
@kernellogger @matttbe yeah, partially due to patches that only fix part of a reported issue (I think I was the one who mentioned it on LKML) but also "Closes:" is a very definitive statement, when quite often a fix does not in fact entirely fix the problem.
1
0
0
Conor Dooley
conor
@kernellogger I see the "Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report" stuff got merged. I really dislike that it whines if I do Reported-by: followed by Link:.
1
0
0
@dickon Oh I totally didn't interpret as figurehead. I know we talked about the crypto support patches at FOSDEM w/ him, so I figured it was a "he sent it, but we all worked on it" type of comment.
Sounds like you guys are doing a pretty good job of internships.
> He's also the team's best git wrangler, which is actually worrying me; he goes back to uni in September...
Oof. git-wranger-in-chief is kinda my job title too, although I've managed to gradually improve everyone's ability over the last few years.
Sounds like you guys are doing a pretty good job of internships.
> He's also the team's best git wrangler, which is actually worrying me; he goes back to uni in September...
Oof. git-wranger-in-chief is kinda my job title too, although I've managed to gradually improve everyone's ability over the last few years.
1
0
1