> >I don't see why. If we have two patches, the state inbetween them is > >broken. > > Even so, it has always been broken, we don't make it more broken by > reverting your change. Yes. Still, if I send something to *stable*, less broken is not an option for me, if I know there is a fix possible. And we are at -rc3 now, so there is still time for that. > >And we don't have two patches yet, just the revert. So, the > > I'm going to consider the spinlock issue ASAP, after I check whether the > I2C clock frequency really has any influence on the unexpected read NACK > issue I've been chasing for several days. Good luck with that! Such bugs are truly annoying :( > Your patch removing the spinlock went into 3.16 only but we'd have to > backport the assumed single patch to the -stable kernels older than that. > This means that I'd have to provide the "delta" patch (i.e. the separate > patch that I'd like to provide now atop of the revert) for these kernels > instead since the original single patch wouldn't apply anyway. With all my changes in 3.16, I wonder if the patch with your addition to the revert will apply anyhow. But, okay, you send two patches, and I will decide how I apply them and deal with delta-patches. Okay? All the best, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
