[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220405212852.GA5493@amd>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 23:28:52 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
Marcelo Roberto Jimenez <marcelo.jimenez@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.16 0018/1017] Revert "gpio: Revert regression in
sysfs-gpio (gpiolib.c)"
Hi!
> [ Upstream commit 56e337f2cf1326323844927a04e9dbce9a244835 ]
>
> This reverts commit fc328a7d1fcce263db0b046917a66f3aa6e68719.
>
> This commit - while attempting to fix a regression - has caused a number
> of other problems. As the fallout from it is more significant than the
> initial problem itself, revert it for now before we find a correct
> solution.
The patch this reverts is queued as 15/ in the series. Rather than
applying broken patch and then reverting, it would be better to drop
both, right?
(I found during 5.10 review, but I can't find 5.10 mail to reply to).
Best regards,
Pavel
--
'DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk'
'HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany'
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists