Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mtd: spi-nor: fix the lock left held by spi_nor_rww_start_exclusive()

[Michael Walle]

On Mon Sep 14, 2026 at 2:34 PM CEST, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> On 14/09/2026 at 14:20:05 +02, "Michael Walle" <mwalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> Michael, since we already got a cycle with AI walls of text just to tell
>>> "fix that damn conversion", can I (or you) apply that other patch, so we
>>> can get rid of these? Let me know what you prefer, although I don't
>>> remember where that thread is.
>>
>> It's already in spi-nor/next since last friday.
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mtd/linux.git/log/?h=spi-nor/next
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/178913311701.1915651.4791624215787396187.b4-ty@b4/T/#me3b51a242469a4d9722089e18547e87fdc65d7c9
>>
>> -michael
>
> Since that one is "big" I would have merged it through a fixes PR. I

A big one nobody cared until the rise of AI agents actively searching
for it? :)

> usually send one around -rc4. So either you push the patch to mtd/fixes
> (or I do it) and drop it from the spi-nor/next branch, or we keep things
> like this, which is also kind of ok.

I can move it into fixes though.

> Regarding the use of `git push -f`, I know Richard, Pratyush & Tudor
> highly dislike it and avoid to use it. I find this tool pretty useful on
> branches like ours and prefer to drop a patch rather than carrying its
> revert, or messing around with merges. I prefer a clean history rather
> than the absolute lack of -f. We already have the (Linus) master branch
> milestone which is set in stone, I don't get the need to create one
> ourselves.

Yeah, I'll probably use a force push as I prefer the clean history
too.

-michael

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature