On Fri 23 Jul 10:54 CDT 2021, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 09:34:20AM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Fri 23 Jul 03:18 CDT 2021, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 03:09:37PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > Which tree did you revert this in? 5.13.stable?) > > > > > > My usb-linus branch which will go to Linus later today. Then we can > > > backport the revert to older kernels as needed. > > > > > > > I'm not worried about the backports, I'm worried about conflicts you're > > causing because you're taking a non-usb patch through the usb tree. > > > > I was about to push a revert (to this and the other Qualcomm platforms), > > but as you're taking some set of reverts through the usb tree we're just > > in for a bunch of merge conflicts. > > It shouldn't be a merge conflict as you can apply the same revert to > your tree now and keep on merging. When you pick up 5.14-rc3 from Linus > it should merge "correctly", right? > I typically don't merge back the -rcs into my -next branch, is that common practice? But I still don't understand why you insist on driving this through your tree. I've asked you several times to show me on the patch so I at least can Ack it. I made a mistake, but why do you insist on keeping me - the maintainer - out of the loop? Regards, Bjorn
