On 20/08/2019 17:56, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> From: Richard Röjfors <email@example.com>
> This reverts commit 1fd419e5b4b3a87673f8e0219edb0f3ed9fca774.
This patch is fine and certainly necessary in the context of this
series. Posting it as a 'revert', however, is a bit unsavoury.
A reverted patch implies that it was somehow wrong or inappropriate.
That's not the case here. This code has become superfluous in the face
of other changes that have been made in the tree.
I agree, this did not introduce any obvious bug, but the other revert did.
Just squash these two revert patches into one "forward looking" patch.
The fact that the change effectively constitutes a 'revert' is moot.
For me it doesn't matter its the same effect.
Denis, whats your opinion?
I think you have the final say.