Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 08:03:24AM +0200: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 10:15:30AM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Sun, Sep 01, 2024 at 06:18:10PM +0200: > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This reverts commit 0096d223f78cb48db1ae8ae9fd56d702896ba8ae which is > > > commit 150e792dee9ca8416f3d375e48f2f4d7f701fc6b upstream. > > > > > > It breaks the build and shouldn't be here, it was applied to make a > > > follow-up one apply easier. > > > > > > Reported-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > It's a detail but if you fix anything else in this branch I'd appreciate > > this mail being updated to my work address: > > Reported-by: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > (Sorry for the annoyance, just trying to keep the boundary with stable > > kernel work I do for $job and 9p work on I do on my free time; if you're > > not updating the patches feel free to leave it that way - thanks for > > having taken the time to revert the commit in the first place!) > > We can't really change things that are already in the tree, so we just > copy the commit directly from that, sorry. This commit isn't in tree yet -- it's a patch specific to the 5.10 branch that doesn't exist anywhere else (not a backport), and 5.10.225 hasn't been tagged yet. With that said I'll reiterate it's probably not worth the trouble, just replying because I don't understand where that "already in the tree" came from. Thanks, -- Dominique
