On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 06:43:04PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > The patch description here sounds more like it's just refactoring the > code a bit, but if I understand correctly, it's fixing an issue that > cause a WARN?
Yes, this has been causing a regression in my testing since before the merge window. I originally reported the issue on the 22nd, the week before the merge window. > So... Either we could 1) split the patch, have the WARN fix as a fix > patch to the current rc, and the rest later in the next merge window, or > 2) if you want to keep this as a single patch, I think it makes sense to > change the subject and description to highlight the fix aspect. The offending code had only been in -next since the 17th (a week and a half before the merge window) so I'm not sure there's huge concerns about stability TBH. A this point I'm more concerned that we're going to get a -rc1 with breakage. with brea
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
