netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: clarify the need to sending reverts as patches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 10:52:03 -0700
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <corbet@....net>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: clarify the need to sending
 reverts as patches



On 3/27/2023 10:26 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> We don't state explicitly that reverts need to be submitted
> as a patch. It occasionally comes up.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> ---
> CC: corbet@....net
> CC: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> index e31d7a951073..f6983563ff06 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> @@ -184,11 +184,18 @@ Handling misapplied patches
>  
>  Occasionally a patch series gets applied before receiving critical feedback,
>  or the wrong version of a series gets applied.
> -There is no revert possible, once it is pushed out, it stays like that.
> +
> +Making the patch disappear once it is pushed out is not possible, the commit
> +history in netdev trees is stable.
>  Please send incremental versions on top of what has been merged in order to fix
>  the patches the way they would look like if your latest patch series was to be
>  merged.
>  
> +In cases where full revert is needed the revert has to be submitted
> +as a patch to the list with a commit message explaining the technical
> +problems with the reverted commit. Reverts should be used as a last resort,
> +when original change is completely wrong; incremental fixes are preferred.
> +

This is much clearer. It highlights that you won't rewind/modify
history, and explains the desire for incremental fixes better.

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>

>  Stable tree
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~
>