On Thursday 11 February 2016 11:28:52 Paul Gortmaker wrote: > [Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Revert "drivers/tty/serial: make 8250/8250_mtk.c explicitly non-modular"] On 11/02/2016 (Thu 17:06) Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Thursday 11 February 2016 11:00:22 Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > > [[PATCH v2 1/6] Revert "drivers/tty/serial: make 8250/8250_mtk.c explicitly non-modular"] On 11/02/2016 (Thu 16:41) Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > > This reverts commit d72d391c126e, which tried to remove dead code but > > > > left the driver in a useless state when the main 8250 driver is a > > > > > > Am I misunderstanding something? The commit didn't cause the driver to > > > be in a useless state for 8250=m. But rather isn't that it was a > > > pre-existing condition, independent of the change to 8250_mtk.c to > > > remove the dead code in d72d391c126e? > > > > > > Since the commit did not touch Kconfig or Makefile, I can't see how it > > > could cause some new useless state that did not already exist, and hence > > > the "Fixes:" tag is invalid as well. > > > > My wording may have been bad here. What I meant to say is that it > > was broken before the patch, and still broken after the patch. > > OK, no problem. I just didn't want Greg/Jiri to think I was sending them > broken commits. Will need a v3 to get rid of the extra module.h > anyway, so that gives you a chance to reword. Sure. > > > > The Fixes tag was meant to just be a reference to the commit I'm > > reverting. > > Yeah, but since the stable people trigger off of that, and since the > revert doesn't really fix anything, that is probably best removed. > The stable trees don't need the revert. Yes, good point. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
