On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 08:22:17AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > On 7/25/23 02:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 07:38:24PM +0000, Deucher, Alexander wrote: > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Alex G. <mr.nuke.me@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 3:23 PM > > > > To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > > > > stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Cc: patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Limonciello, Mario > > > > <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>; Deucher, Alexander > > > > <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx>; Wang, Chao-kai (Stylon) > > > > <Stylon.Wang@xxxxxxx>; Wu, Hersen <hersenxs.wu@xxxxxxx>; Li, Roman > > > > <Roman.Li@xxxxxxx>; Wheeler, Daniel <Daniel.Wheeler@xxxxxxx>; eniac- > > > > xw.zhang@xxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 146/223] drm/amd/display: edp do not add non-edid > > > > timings > > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > This patch was > > > > * originally added to v6.1.35 > > > > * reverted in v6.1.39 > > > > * added back in v6.1.40 > > > > > > > > This patch is still reverted in mainline. Was this patch re-added by mistake in > > > > v6.1.y stable? > > > > > > Yes, this patch should stay reverted. > > > > Where was it reverted in the 6.1.y tree? And where was it reverted in > > Linus's tree? > > > > I think the confusion here is you have the same commit in the tree with > > two different commit ids. So when I see the patches flow by, I applied > > just this one to the tree, and I only see it in 6.1.40 with that id, > > missing any possible revert of a previous version as the ids don't match > > up. > > > > In other words, what am I supposed to do here when you duplicate > > commits? What's the revert of this commit, is it also in the tree > > twice? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Here is the revert from Linus' tree (6.5-rc1): > d6149086b45e150c170beaa4546495fd1880724c > > Here are the two times it landed in Linus' tree (6.4-rc7 and 6.5-rc1) > e749dd10e5f292061ad63d2b030194bf7d7d452c > 7a0e005c7957931689a327b2a4e7333a19f13f95 > > It should be reverted in 6.1. Ick, what a mess, and now you can see why I missed that. And everyone missed the original revert should have also gone to 5.15.y :( I've queued it up everywhere now, hopefully that's it. But next time, PLEASE make this more obvious somehow. Applying the same patch twice, and only having one revert looks like it was applied, reverted, and then applied, not reverted again once more. thanks, greg k-h
