From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 133153B95EC; Tue, 12 May 2026 09:36:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778578600; cv=none; b=a/9Zb5EWhg45IsM955QiFBj/3I81M/RkFrajYEuKg4BoKQQx9BId3bcSTprPgQIEt7R2KgdUaXXPCoA5P6LRcRYbscz6IqS0skBYcwBW06BoPbyTVgwsb6FS5Muh1ip8l9CkyuhJjxgYhqUYbuuPnzHHhNZTbvvKUPIUnsdFsmw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778578600; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5imsN2GRDgEnQmP7IgCKhWEjk3S4UBKSkBhZKZxcuhc=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ZjjPuSSOW7XjD6UOEkOOh9oZ75c1sP/crwOb2FUH0wUCmx2P22OfAj9suqh6Rr9XKYshwZY4jmb4XjA+RJhYHRIcrMj0VtdEG+ufia0K+vwCaXA5JE+cZdoSpfAtZfch1+RrQt/6FA0WOUlW/n88CRvKtCcAd97gqwVbBAfmpSQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=qt1PoSHM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="qt1PoSHM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=5imsN2GRDgEnQmP7IgCKhWEjk3S4UBKSkBhZKZxcuhc=; t=1778578597; x=1779788197; b=qt1PoSHMIQrbMiHdMDsu7n+0b0GPztxL9ywEYXpHK0sRWsN o+x3PEdXgEuy8OcoUzPjBvqY6wT+seJ+5NrxP5maSztd5fObqY4hcyA6ct1TuJcw9Q8OSRZPEscPI +VlJ4HCEhjHMO8CyrEwhGOwAPkFAqyz89J5P8kYs0el5aah2WJp837fBzeho33hEFNmgEWX5JJ0AS Gnj6W7vkc8jbUibBK4sT050H3Qrg9P53ADbUh3iSCr7J7iKWDKzVYREXbKyD0W/EUCbGrtaTuPCm7 QsdfM774aVCEvL5KrVP+sxbsYn6M4oYsEOpB+MTdlcT4HIECPfIhJN4Jp8W2ocag==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wMjXP-00000000KzB-10oU; Tue, 12 May 2026 11:36:27 +0200 Message-ID: <522d09d5fad2fdebc89419a7e75b89ff14de162a.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH rtw-next v2] wifi: rtl8xxxu: Detect the maximum supported channel width From: Johannes Berg To: Thorsten Leemhuis , Ping-Ke Shih Cc: Jes Sorensen , Bitterblue Smith , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "art1310@proton.me" , Linux kernel regressions list Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 11:36:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <02c073d8-d2c9-4faa-be51-9ba38247b24e@leemhuis.info> References: <41693ffc-926c-4e67-9a48-b6e1b1d150bd@leemhuis.info> <1cf071e9-5d3c-4d55-ac75-49eb4c461422@leemhuis.info> <29a93dc3d9d24b3a809310694ffc5d34@realtek.com> <02c073d8-d2c9-4faa-be51-9ba38247b24e@leemhuis.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2026-05-12 at 10:54 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > You > > > can cherry-pick or directly apply the fix to a pending branch (or eve= n > > > ask Linus to merge it directly from the list, but that is likely not > > > worth it here) and git will normally later notice this and fully > > > automatically handle everything when the fix comes in again during th= e > > > next merge window. > >=20 > > I know git can handle that, but is it an acceptable practice for single= one > > commit to appear twice? >=20 > Depends on whom you ask. I'd say: It's kinda normal. It's best avoided > if there is no need, but if there is a need (like here) it's fine. And > some subsystems it even happens regularly iirc. FWIW, it's generally frowned upon and actually uncommon enough that linux-next actively warns about it [1] (or at least used to?), so I wouldn't really say your description here is all that accurate. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=3D%22duplicate+patch+in+the%22 What does happen fairly frequently is the same immutable commit getting merged through different branches, but that's a single commit, not the same change being committed twice. johannes