On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 01:41:44PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Oh. That's super-annoying, because that wasn't part of my commit message.
> Andrew has a bad habit of plucking text from the 0/n message and adding it
> to the 1/n commit, even when it makes no sense to do so. This text was
> to explain why I'm sending the patch series and why it should be merged.
> It makes no sense to make it part of the patch commit message.
The patch was picked up as a dependency for af2debd58bd7 ("s390/crash:
make copy_oldmem_page() return number of bytes copied"), and not as a
fix on it's own.
But the backport of that patch should have been simply
- return rc;
+ return csize;
There was no need to bring in all this other gunk.
Possibly. In general we'll take the set of dependencies even if it means
taking more code: it makes it easier to backport future patches, and is
less prone to backport errors.
If something is wrong we can always fix it up, this isn't permanent,
right?
--
Thanks,
Sasha