From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 60C801514D0; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:05:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715864745; cv=none; b=NXJSHMafT7SeUwV3lS0+Y3NpUOJwI4OhMYec7KpD6a7S7fDkshk3GVl4SzzujXnmvJPoRtrlMWqvX0/hDDrtd7e3nt4pfVtNqXCt+rhRYUdjMmsTM+Oil0WVW15yWmpa0G1kepk+lVnbsV8XJ5niy8LoKK6+q1v4HFhVNBmCQCk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715864745; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ke1oGpsUlk+WCojKC8HCTnGiWFT9wqfEGpfx0tqlf+0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OhJ40iHdHidoaybLH7fFSGk0DeIfeKkS7c9hld9K+vK10IVH9BVYvOXNCQE3wedyZeceluNhvc+0JsRSJBQ4vxzRvpc3M72Nk694xdKWtXVhUc+aitVuIMlL0KtUfiPKvBe6bZlD+gyEoPJ1T5Z3ySQn+GUlPrtEPXI3hXfZguM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=GYCzIPSC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="GYCzIPSC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D62CC2BD11; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:05:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1715864744; bh=Ke1oGpsUlk+WCojKC8HCTnGiWFT9wqfEGpfx0tqlf+0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=GYCzIPSCn2nAUUIrcWpObh4RyTsjvcjTws2RAdJ0Ib5T+rVksOxvLppjwZcDQ7qKM hkNNguol/fNJodC4nl8pIa2dTyaC1cIL1U2xYjFX2eLhRl9YesYEkh/HjHIyl6XR+h Pid8j6r3XbGsi0W94JzMWVNwY1boexDRZMrP3vB8= Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 15:05:42 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Pavel Machek Cc: rrameshbabu@nvidia.com, kuba@kernel.org, lirongqing@baidu.com, vkoul@kernel.org, bumyong.lee@samsung.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, jonathanh@nvidia.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com, srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de, conor@kernel.org, allen.lkml@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/63] 4.19.314-rc1 review Message-ID: <2024051635-portly-requisite-32a3@gregkh> References: <20240514100948.010148088@linuxfoundation.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 02:24:02PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Vinod Koul > > dmaengine: Revert "dmaengine: pl330: issue_pending waits until WFP state" > > Bumyong Lee > > dmaengine: pl330: issue_pending waits until WFP state > > We apply patch just to revert it immediately. Rules say "- It must be > obviously correct and tested.". You do this often, should the rules be > fixed? We apply patches that are cc: stable and having the change, and then the revert, is the best way forward otherwise we get lots of complaints we didn't take the first commit. This way all tools are happy, and people are not confused as to why we did not take patches we should have. greg k-h