Hello, On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:50:15PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:23:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Assuming we don't want to have this problem in v6.8, I suggest to revert > > de4af897ddf2 and reapply it on top of your next branch. > > BTW the issue here is that you sent this without comment in the middle > of a series of fixes the other two of which *do* apply to mainline, > ideally it would have just been sent separately since it needs to go > separately but if you *are* going to send a single series like this > things that are -next only should go after any fixes that are for > mainline. I expected that adding Fixes lines is enough documentation but I agree that in retrospect it would have been a good idea to mention the expected target branch for each patch. I'm willing to take half of the blame you assigned me as in retrospect double checking the Fixes lines or doing a compile test of the ppc4xx driver would also have been a good idea for you as maintainer applying the patches. Sorry for my contribution to this problem. I only looked at next when I sent the patches and wasn't aware of the trip wire that git applies patch 2 just fine to mainline though it's not right to put it there. I ordered patch 3 at the end because I didn't consider this an urgent fix as it only addresses a W=1 warning that we lived with for over 10 years since v3.11-rc1. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
