On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 17:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > > * Cornelia Huck (coh...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:29:01 +0100 > > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > > > > > Revert a couple of patches that break PCIe capabilities in virtio > > > devices. The 'optional' revert is just reverted to make the main > > > reversion trivial. > > > > Don't want to spoil the party here; but wasn't the optional stuff > > removed because it was deemed to be a bad idea? > > I'm perfectly happy to go either way with this; it maybe a bad idea > but it's harmless I think.
It seems like the original commits were: * patch that does something * patch that removes no-longer used functionality (optional globals) so it makes sense to me that if we want to revert the 'patch that does something' we should first revert the patch that cleaned up unused-functionality (because now we need it again). Is that right? If optional-globals are a bad idea then we should take another run at this for 4.2, but as a "revert stuff for 4.1" strategy it seems fine to me. thanks -- PMM
