Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754831AbeAHRz7 (ORCPT + 1 other); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:55:59 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:42654 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751143AbeAHRz4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:55:56 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotU+rFHVpmlRi8S/JB76xZB9rdDglQLUpewSQtxs1jOVARlk0K0018Dcb0s4EFqVKXd2rzvlA== Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:55:51 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Josef Griebichler , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Stern , USB list , Eric Dumazet , Rik van Riel , Paolo Abeni , Hannes Frederic Sowa , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , linux-kernel , netdev , Jonathan Corbet , LMML , Peter Zijlstra , David Miller Subject: Re: dvb usb issues since kernel 4.9 Message-ID: <20180108175551.wp6thxmiozrz4yp2@gmail.com> References: <20171217120634.pmmuhdqyqmbkxrvl@gofer.mess.org> <20171217112738.4f3a4f9b@recife.lan> <20180106175420.275e24e7@recife.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: * Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab > wrote: > > > > Em Sat, 6 Jan 2018 16:04:16 +0100 > > "Josef Griebichler" escreveu: > >> > >> the causing commit has been identified. > >> After reverting commit https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=4cd13c21b207e80ddb1144c576500098f2d5f882 > >> its working again. > > > > Just replying to me won't magically fix this. The ones that were involved on > > this patch should also be c/c, plus USB people. Just added them. > > Actually, you seem to have added an odd subset of the people involved. > > For example, Ingo - who actually committed that patch - wasn't on the cc. > > I do think we need to simply revert that patch. It's very simple: it > has been reported to lead to actual problems for people, and we don't > fix one problem and then say "well, it fixed something else" when > something breaks. > > When something breaks, we either unbreak it, or we revert the change > that caused the breakage. > > It's really that simple. That's what "no regressions" means. We don't > accept changes that cause regressions. This one did. Yeah, absolutely - for the revert: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar as I doubt we have enough time to root-case this properly. Thanks, Ingo