Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 11:41:10PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> > > I feel like I am missing something here. >> > >> > That is a weird response, you feel like something is missing >> >> There is. The patch. >> >> Maintainers have a slightly better memory than a goldfish, but given >> the high volume of patches, we don't remember threads from 2016. Also, >> all our infrastructure has limited memory, this patch is not in lore, >> and it is not in patchworks. So in terms of getting merged, it does >> not exist. >> >> We do however recommend that if a patch has not been merged within 2 >> weeks, it is rebased, any Acked-by: etc tags are added and the patch >> reposted. > > Thanks Andrew, that is also my position. > > A ping for a multi-year old patch is unusual (for me). > I was wondering if there was a back story. I guess not. The only story here is that I was reviewing the set of patches we apply to our kernels, and I noticed that this one, judging by the discussion, should have been applied to some tree or other ages ago. Now if it takes 6 years to get a one-line patch (a fix for a regression, no less) accepted, I have better things to spend my time on. -- Måns Rullgård
