Re: [PATCH for-next 0/7] FIXME and other fixes

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 12:36:51AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> On 1/15/23 6:46 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:21:50PM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> >> On 1/10/23 4:03 PM, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> >>> On 1/10/23 9:58 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 02:03:58PM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> >>>>> Dean fixes the FIXME that was left by Jason in the code to use the interval
> >>>>> notifier.
> >>>>
> >>>> ? Which patch did that?
> >>>
> >>> My fault. The last patch in the previous series [1] was meant to go first here.
> >>> I got off by 1 when I was splitting the patches out for submit.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/167328549178.1472310.9867497376936699488.stgit@awfm-02.cornelisnetworks.com/T/#u
> >>
> >> As a side effect of this, can we pull patch 2/7 from this series into the RC?
> > 
> > No, everything is in for-rc/for-next now.
> 
> Without that patch there will be a regression in 6.2. 

I'm lost here. You are saying above that you wanted patch from -rc to be
in -next series. However, you wrote about regression in 6.2, which is -rc.

> Is there a reason it can't merge into -rc?

Here you are asking to bring -next patches to -rc.

So please help me, what do you want to do with these branches?
1. -rc
2. -next

Options are:
1. keep as is
2. revert
3. anything else?

What we won't do:
1. backmerge -next to -rc
2. merge -rc into -next without strong justification, as it is not
needed in general because such merge happens during merge window.

Thanks