On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 08:42:18PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 11:48:14PM +0000, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: > > This reverts commit f22e9b67f19ccc73de1ae04375d4b30684e261f8. This is not the format we use for referring to commits. > > > > The regression reported in > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZF4bMptC3Lf2Hnee@xxxxxxxxxxx/ is being > > fixed in > > commit 7d7863db7cc0 ("usb: gadget: udc: core: Offload usb_udc_vbus_handler processing"). That is the correct format. > What commit is that? It doesn't exist yet, at least, not in the > mainline kernel. > > > Hence reverting the revert. > > > > Signed-off-by: Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@xxxxxxxxxx> > > No! Do not do this. If you do, there will again be a version of the > kernel that has the bug that caused the revert in the first place. Even > if it's only temporary, it could still affect people who are (for > example) trying to run bisections. > > Instead, reorder the patches. First fix the underlying problem that > led to the deadlocks. Once that's in good shape then you can safely > make this change. I forgot to mention... When you do eventually resubmit this, do NOT use the commit message above. It says absolutely nothing about what the patch actually does or why it is needed. It's okay to mention that this reinstates something that had to be reverted. But you also need to include the information that was in the original commit. Alan Stern
