On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 04:02:07PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > 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. A long time to be sure. As Andrew explained, the patch is now stale. It will need to be rebased and reposted in ordered to be considered for upstream.
