On 12.09.23 12:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:44:39AM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>> On 05.09.23 11:09, Ian Abbott wrote:
>>> This reverts commit b5c75b68b7ded84d4c82118974ce3975a4dcaa74.
>>>
>>> The commit makes it impossible to select configuration options that
>>> depend on COMEDI_8254, COMEDI_DAS08, COMEDI_NI_LABPC, or
>>> COMEDI_AMPLC_DIO200 options due to changing 'select' directives to
>>> 'depends on' directives and there being no other way to select those
>>> codependent configuration options.
>>>
>>> Fixes: b5c75b68b7de ("comedi: add HAS_IOPORT dependencies")
>>> Cc: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v6.5+
>>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Hmmm, that fix for a regression from the 6.5 cycle was posted a week ago
>> but didn't get a single reply afaics and hasn't hit next.
>>
>> Greg, is this still in your to-review queue and just delayed due to the
>> merge window? Or are you waiting for something? A ACK fromn Niklas
>> maybe? Or a newer patch to address the kernel test robot report in case
>> its relevant?
>
> The merge window "freeze" ended on Monday, give me a chance to catch up
> with patches please, this is part of my very large todo mbox:
>
> $ mdfrm -c ~/mail/todo/
> 1637 messages in /home/gregkh/mail/todo/
Well, I know that you deal with a lot of patches and often wonder how
you manage to do all that great work, but nevertheless please allow me
to ask:
I assume that that not all of those 1600+ patches are fixes for
regressions, so should a revert for a very recent regression be in a
different mbox with a slightly higher priority[1] to get handled before
the others?
Ciao, Thorsten
[1] for most other developers I would have said "highest priory", but I
assume in your case there are still more important things
