On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:43:52PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:00:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:45:49AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > [ Upstream commit 2da441a6491d93eff8ffff523837fd621dc80389 ] > This is now in 5.13-rc3. > You should have been cc:ed on it a few times already. Hrm, I've managed to find a *single* copy mixed in with a revert as part of a huge series (it was almost 70 patches) with no cover letter that got copied to me - I think what happened here is that this looked like this was something where you'd done a revert and then dropped that revert (which was what things I'd heard from other sources suggested was what was going on with that series). I'd certainly have expected to get a standalone patch submission or other communication for something that was entirely new code, and if you're not getting review for new code like this that isn't super urgent I'd expect some attempts to get it before bypassing. This sort of stuff is not great, especially when half of what you were doing was to address bad practice on the part of the UMN people - I would have really expected any completely new changes like these that came up to be sent as new patches through the normal process rather than mixed in with what look like mechanical, treewide changes. It's a recipe for things getting missed, as I said in followup to the copy of the patch I found there's some issues with the rt5645 changes. On rechecking everything the only issue I actually spotted with any of that code (use of devm at the component level, which realistically is at worst very minor) is not fixed by the additional patch.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
