Hi Kari,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 00:47:00 +0300 Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 04:50:02PM +0300, Konstantin Komarov wrote:
> >
> > On 21.09.2021 01:31, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > In commit
> > >
> > > 0412016e4807 ("fs/ntfs3: Fix wrong error message $Logfile -> $UpCase")
> > >
> > > Fixes tag
> > >
> > > Fixes: 203c2b3a406a ("fs/ntfs3: Add initialization of super block")
> > >
> > > has these problem(s):
> > >
> > > - Target SHA1 does not exist
> > >
> > > Maybe you meant
> > >
> > > Fixes: 82cae269cfa9 ("fs/ntfs3: Add initialization of super block")
> > >
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > You are right, correct SHA is 82cae269cfa9.
> > Sorry, I've missed this while applying patch.
> >
> > As far as I know there is no way to fix this now -
> > commit is already in linux-next.
>
> This still is not fixed. Can you Stephen verify that rebase is ok in
> situatian like this? Also now we have situation that this thing is 6 day
> old already. I actually also do not know if it is ok to rebase anymore,
> but, probably is. I have checked every follow up patches which has been
> applied after this and they are not affected if we rebase.
A rebase is probably not necessary, as the commit is easy to find using
its subject line (as I did). However, it would be better to avoid such
situations in the future.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpP_TLXV2Gjc.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
