On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 12:39:28PM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
On 12.09.23 12:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:44:39AM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
On 05.09.23 11:09, Ian Abbott wrote:
This reverts commit b5c75b68b7ded84d4c82118974ce3975a4dcaa74.
The commit makes it impossible to select configuration options that depend on COMEDI_8254, COMEDI_DAS08, COMEDI_NI_LABPC, or COMEDI_AMPLC_DIO200 options due to changing 'select' directives to 'depends on' directives and there being no other way to select those codependent configuration options.
Fixes: b5c75b68b7de ("comedi: add HAS_IOPORT dependencies") Cc: Niklas Schnelle schnelle@linux.ibm.com Cc: Arnd Bergmann arnd@kernel.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.5+ Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann arnd@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Ian Abbott abbotti@mev.co.uk
Hmmm, that fix for a regression from the 6.5 cycle was posted a week ago but didn't get a single reply afaics and hasn't hit next.
Greg, is this still in your to-review queue and just delayed due to the merge window? Or are you waiting for something? A ACK fromn Niklas maybe? Or a newer patch to address the kernel test robot report in case its relevant?
The merge window "freeze" ended on Monday, give me a chance to catch up with patches please, this is part of my very large todo mbox:
$ mdfrm -c ~/mail/todo/ 1637 messages in /home/gregkh/mail/todo/
Well, I know that you deal with a lot of patches and often wonder how you manage to do all that great work, but nevertheless please allow me to ask:
I assume that that not all of those 1600+ patches are fixes for regressions, so should a revert for a very recent regression be in a different mbox with a slightly higher priority[1] to get handled before the others?
Nope, I lump them all together into one mbox and then sort them when processing. Works faster overall for me. I'll get to it by the end of this week, hopefully :)
thanks,
greg k-h