On Wed 30-09-20 09:00:26, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:37 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 1/3 and 2/3 were cc:stable and 3/3 was not. As far as I can tell, 3/3 > > is rather theoretical once 2/3 has done its work, so I held it off for > > the next merge window. > > That's not the problem, holding off is fine. > > The problem is that the commit messages are garbage as a result. They > were written as a series of three, but the patches weren't _sent_ as a > series of three. This part of the commit message is coming from a cover letter and it is something that would usually go to a merge commit (from a pull request). With Andrew's worklflow he preserves the information in the first patch of the series. It is great to have that information around because there is usually more background and a high level description. > So if you split up a series like that, you should look at the commit > mesages and edit them appropriately. Yeah, in cases like that it is better to just drop that cover letter part. I would still argue that all three could have gone in together. The last patch has not been marked for stable but it is a useful patch on its own as it drops a really distasteful BUG() on a failure mode. IMHO it wouldn't be a big deal to postpone sending these during the merge window as these patches are not addressing a regression for this part merge window. Just my 2c -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
