Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I already did that, only to get more snark in return. -- Måns Rullgård
