Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/7] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: support switchdev FDB objects
From: Florian Fainelli
Date: Tue Aug 11 2015 - 14:05:54 EST
On 11/08/15 10:38, David Miller wrote:
> From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:25:06 -0400 (EDT)
>> I can work on fixup patches to restore v3 changes on top of v2, but this
>> won't fix the bisectability issue.
>> Instead of fixing individual portions, reverting the merge commit
>> f1d5ca4: "Merge branch 'mv88e6xxx-switchdev-fdb'" would undo all the v2
>> series at once, then v3 can be merged on top of it.
>> Can you consider this as an option?
> Nothing will fix bisectability, so don't try.
> Reverting an entire series when you have the fix available
> already is excessive.
> So as I have already asked you, send a relative fixup to clear
> up this situation.
What if the fix is to actually not break bisectability? Put differently,
my question is how do you value not rewriting history vs. breaking
bisectability (by accident of course)?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/