Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the v9fs tree

From: Dominique Martinet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:53:35 +0900

Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 04:55:17PM +0100:
> On Monday, December 5, 2022 11:41:55 PM CET Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:40:06PM +0100:
> > > Dominique, looking at your 9p queue, I just realized what happened here: I 
> > > posted a v2 of these two patches, which got lost for some reason:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email-masked]/
> > > 
> > > The currently queued 1st patch is still v1 as well.
> > 
> > Oh. Now how did I manage that one..
> > Thanks for the catch, and v2 had the valid printf modifier...
> 
> You remember updating the 1st patch as well, right? :)

It looks up to date to me, e.g. zc is added at the end of the p9_fcall
structure.
(and these are the only two patches you sent, right? :D)

> In general, I'm sure nobody complains about extra noise like "queued on...".
> Then it's also more likely for other people to get which patches are still
> pending or unseen.

I usually apply the patch locally when writing a note about 'taking the
patch for x' -- but the problem is my workflow is pretty manual to say
the least (piping mail to base64, base64 to git am on another
machine...); and I'm not always taking the time to run tests immediately
so not pushing right away to -next, so I assume I took your patches
early and looked back when testing after you sent v2 and they were there
so did't notice :/

I guess I need to pull the tree back and script a reply from the last
link or something; so you'll notice the reply is on v1 in this case?
but it'll be a pain to get the subject back like e.g. pwbot does for
netdev... hmm..
I'll think about what I can do.

-- 
Dominique