[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ce2a0bd-d39a-71d7-2327-3850dfdd646c@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:18:26 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Jean-Francois Le Fillatre <jflf_kernel@....com>,
stable <stable@...nel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.19 014/207] Revert "usb: add quirks for Lenovo OneLink+
Dock"
On 27. 09. 22, 7:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 07:23:46AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> I wonder, does it make sense to queue the commit (as 011/207) and
>> immediately its revert (the patch below) in a single release? I doubt
>> that...
>>
>> The same holds for 012 (patch) + 015 (revert).
>
> Yes it does, otherwise tools will pick up "hey, you forgot this patch
> that should have been applied here!" all the time. Having the patch,
> and the revert, in the tree prevents that from happening.
It'd be fairly easy to fix the tools not to pick up reverted commits, right?
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists