[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32232229031e02edcc268b1074c9bac44012ee35.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 03:00:16 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pxa: pxa2xx: Remove 'pxa2xx_pinctrl_exit()'
which is unused and broken
On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 11:52 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Should Fixes also be used when the change will make it hard to port other
> fixes over it?
If it's a logic defect or regression that's being fixed,
shouldn't the logic defect or regression be fixed as
reasonably soon as possible?
The nature of the fix should ideally be optimal for
backporting, but I believe that should not stop any
consideration for the standalone fix itself.
What do you think?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists