[PATCH v2] arm64: allow building with kcov coverage on ARM64

[Catalin Marinas]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:32:59PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:25:31PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:44:12PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:20:03PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > > > I think it's time to ask now :)
> > > > If I receive "Tested-by" or "Acked-by" responses, do I need to send
> > > > out a patch adding them, or should I rely on the maintainer taking the
> > > > patch to the tree?
> > > > The first option reduces the amount of work done by the maintainer,
> > > > while the second one reduces the traffic in the list.
> > > > Sorry, I couldn't find the answer in the manuals.
> > > 
> > > It's up to the maintainer, so it varies. The best thing to do is to ask
> > > the maintainer what they'd prefer.
> > > 
> > > From my experience, Catalin is usually happy to add tags, so I suspect
> > > he'd be happy to do so for this patch (assuming he's happy to pick it
> > > up). I'll leave it for him to say either way.
> > 
> > I usually cherry-pick tags that I see in reply to the *latest* version
> > of the patch (I have a rudimentary script to do this).
> > 
> > I noticed that there was an ack on v1 form Marc Z that's missing in v2.
> 
> I believe Marc's reply [1] was to v3 [2], it's just that the version was
> missing form the subject, and discussions continued on v2 in the mean
> time.

OK, thanks for clarification. I thought the one with most replies was
the latest ;).

> > Maybe it no longer applies, I can't tell, but I usually expect
> > subsequent versions of a patch to include all the previously given acks
> > (of course, if they still apply, sometimes a patch rewrite means
> > dropping those tags).
> 
> I guess the simplest thing to do is for Alexander to send a v4 with the
> tags accumulated, assuming James's Tested-by is applicable to v3 with
> the boot/Makefile hunk removed. James?

Even better.

-- 
Catalin