On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 02:54:54PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 23 Jul 10:54 CDT 2021, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 09:34:20AM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Fri 23 Jul 03:18 CDT 2021, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 03:09:37PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > > Which tree did you revert this in? 5.13.stable?)
> > > >
> > > > My usb-linus branch which will go to Linus later today. Then we can
> > > > backport the revert to older kernels as needed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not worried about the backports, I'm worried about conflicts you're
> > > causing because you're taking a non-usb patch through the usb tree.
> > >
> > > I was about to push a revert (to this and the other Qualcomm platforms),
> > > but as you're taking some set of reverts through the usb tree we're just
> > > in for a bunch of merge conflicts.
> >
> > It shouldn't be a merge conflict as you can apply the same revert to
> > your tree now and keep on merging. When you pick up 5.14-rc3 from Linus
> > it should merge "correctly", right?
> >
>
> I typically don't merge back the -rcs into my -next branch, is that
> common practice?
I do it when Linus takes patches from my -linus branch in order to
ensure they end up in my -next branch for testing and merge issues.
> But I still don't understand why you insist on driving this through your
> tree. I've asked you several times to show me on the patch so I at least
> can Ack it. I made a mistake, but why do you insist on keeping me - the
> maintainer - out of the loop?
I had already done the revert, I wasn't trying to keep anyone out of the
loop here, sorry if it came across that way. I just wanted to ensure
this got resolved quickly so I could move on to other issues.
This is now 1f958f3dff42 ("Revert "arm64: dts: qcom: Harmonize DWC USB3
DT nodes name"") in Linus's tree if you wish to cherry-pick it into your
tree to resolve merge issues, sorry for the confusion.
thanks,
greg k-h
