On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 02:09:00PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > Hey Jason, > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 09:47:26AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:59:52PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > The typical kernel standard is to fix bugs in patches and only reach > > > > for a wholesale revert if the community is struggling with bug > > > > fixing. Dmitry already tested removing that hunk, Robin explained the > > > > issue, we understand the bug fix is to remove the > > > > arm_smmu_init_domain_context() call. Nothing justifies a full scale > > > > revert. > > > > > > I can't say I'm aware of any consensus for how to handle this, to be > > > completely honest with you. > > > > Well, I work in a lot of subsystems and this is a surprise to me and > > not something I've seen before. Fix the bug, move forward. Reverts are > > a cultural admission of failure. I use threats of a revert as a hammer > > to encourage people to pay attention to the bugs. I hardly ever > > actually revert things. What does reverting their code say to my > > submitters??? > > Huh. I guess I'm lucky never to have worked in a environment where that > is the case. In fact, my experience is quite the opposite: revert first > so that things get back to a working state and the developer/submitter > has some breathing room to rework the broken code. It's actually fairly > blameless if you get it right and when you have a half-functional CI it's > pretty much a necessity. Anyway, I digress... Fascinating, I am glad we had this discussion because I was pretty put off by this talk of revert in this and the other thread. Cultural differences! Thanks, Jason
