Re: pull-request: ath-current-20260113

[Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 1/14/2026 1:47 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-01-13 at 09:33 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Note to maintainers:
>>
>> This tag includes:
>> 31707572108d ("wifi: ath12k: Fix wrong P2P device link id issue")
>>
>> That commit contains the following:
>>
>> Note to linux-next and netdev maintainers:
> 
> I'm a bit on the fence about this, I hadn't thought about it on the
> prior -next PR much, but I feel like this is a process thing that
> shouldn't get recorded in the tag for posterity?
> 
> I do appreciate the inclusion of this (*especially* when I won't notice
> the merge conflict myself), but I tend to think it should be in the
> email rather than the tag message, since the latter is something I use
> for the merge commit message and it gets recorded.
> 
> Either way I have to preserve it manually to the next level, so it
> doesn't really help all that much, although I guess in the tag there's a
> chance I could see it again when preparing my PR.
> 
> I'll just edit it out this time I think since it's so long, but you can
> complain and convince me otherwise for the next time ;-)

In retrospect I made one bad decision. I modified the commit text of that
patch in my "pending" branch to add the conflict resolution information.
Instead of that, I should have reposted the "pending" version with that
conflict resolution embedded in the "basement" of the patch so that then it
would be part of the email record on lore but not part of the patch record in
git. And then for the tag I could have referred to that lore link in the PR
email. So this was a good learning lesson for me.

Hopefully these merge conflicts will be much fewer once the refactored ath12k
lands in Linus' tree in the next merge window.

/jeff