Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: imx6: Check for link training status in link up check

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:23:12AM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 13:55 +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:49:59PM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote:
> > > This fixes a regression introduced in merge 562df5c8521e.
> > 
> > A merge being a commits collection, the regression was certainly
> > introduced by a specific commit in it, not the merge itself.
> 
> In this case it really is merge commit.
> 
> While the problem and fix are relatively obvious, finding how it came
> to be broken was a challenge.  Most of the commit message is my proof
> that this is a bug and not something done intentionally, by tracking
> back the complicated route that caused the code to be in its current
> state.
> 
> Basically there are two commits, on both branches of the merge, neither
> of which caused a problem nor were they incorrect in any way at the
> time they were committed.  When that merge combined this collection of
> multiple commits, it did not do so correctly and that is the point a
> bug appeared.
> 
> Or put another way, this problem was already fixed some time ago, but
> in the merge commit the fix was dropped.
> 
> It seems like the proper way to attribute my fix is to the merge, as
> that is what caused the regression.  There is no prior commit where one
> can observe the regression.

You are right, I went through git history and I agree with your
summary, that's what happened.

> > Also for the Fixes: tag and all references.
> 
> Would it be ok to refer to the commit this way the first time, then use
> a shortened method for subsequent usages?  Otherwise talking about two
> commits becomes very long.  This it what I have mostly done, other than
> the "Fixes" line.  I'm surprised checkpatch didn't catch that.

I would like to ask Bjorn's opinion on this, I do not know if adding
a Fixes: tag with a merge commit in it is common practice but that
summarizes what happened so I assume it should be fine.

As for the shortened commit format I understand your point, I do not
know if that's "official" from a kernel process standpoint.

Lorenzo



[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux