On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 01:34:34PM +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > I sent a similar one recently: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10131815/ (maybe Josh is just > > forwarding me an earlier fix?) > > > > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulni...@gmail.com> > > > > I actually submitted this (other) patch to LKML on 2017-12-10: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10103977/ > > I also pointed this out on the llvmlinux mailing list: > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/2017-December/001535.html > > (The mail might not have been distributed yet to its recipients, because I > am on the llvmlinux mailing list only for a few days, and I might have not > been whitelisted for getting through the spam filtering of that list.) > > Nick submitted another patch to LKML on 2017-12-24 (see above). > > The source code change is the same; but the commit message was different. > Now the third patch from Josh here is another equal patch with yet another > commit message, combining information from both patches. > > Assuming that the authorship of this one-line change does not matter, as it > is largely suggested by the clang compiler anyway, and we want to move the > change forward, we should decide on which of three patches to move > forward. I can give my Reviewed-by and Tested-by to any of them.
The patch from Lukas was the first one I received, so that's the one I used. I rewrote the commit msg for clarity and added my SOB and sent it to Ingo for merging. -- Josh
