Re: Kernel-ark os-build branch has been rebased

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Lo!

On 28.06.21 22:10, Justin Forbes wrote:
> If you have a pending merge request, you will need to rebase your
> source tree and force push so that things will cleanly merge.
> 
> While this is the first time we have done this for os-build, we expect
> to keep it up as a cadence with every upstream release. This means we
> will do it again when 5.14 releases, and again with 5.15... […]

BTW, does anyone occasionally review the patches to check which ones
still need to be upstreamed or maybe can be dropped? To me it looks like
it would be a good idea after a quick review:

I looked at

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/blob/rawhide/f/Patchlist.changelog

and randomly picked one that didn't look like it was RHEL specific. It
was this one:

https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/commit/5ef51389cf6673a0e9e004909c7be1dc785050b2

Looks to me like it was never merged upstream:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c

For a quick search it looks like things stalled here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20170331085751.GF22683@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/


Funnily enough it seems that patch was fixing a regression I ran into
myself back in 2017 (yes, I really picked that patch from the list
nearly at random; I can't even remember that regression). But seems it
was fixed somewhere/somehow/somewhen, because until recently I regular
used the particular XPS13 with vanilla kernels and never noticed any
touchpad problems (I can recheck the dmesg output if anyone is
interested, I still have access to the machine occationally).

Okay, it was good/bad luck that I immediately picked one that looks
obsolete, but it IMHO clearly shows that revisiting the patches every
now and them might be good idea, which made me write this mail. Don#t
known, maybe even some kind of policy like "after one/two years somebody
has to vouch for a patch, otherwise it gets dropped" might be a good idea?

Side note: All those RHEL-only patches make it look like the Fedora
kernel is quite a bit modified, which might be bad for Fedora's
reputation. If they really have to be there (do they?), can't they at
least be marked more clearly? Maybe when generating Patchlist.changelog
add "RHEL-only: " to the description if the commit message contains
"RHEL-only"?

Ciao, Thorsten
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux