Re: pull-request: ath-current-20260113

On Wed, 2026-01-14 at 07:13 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 1/14/2026 1:47 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2026-01-13 at 09:33 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > > 
> > > Note to maintainers:
> > > 
> > > This tag includes:
> > > 31707572108d ("wifi: ath12k: Fix wrong P2P device link id issue")
> > > 
> > > That commit contains the following:
> > > 
> > > Note to linux-next and netdev maintainers:
> > 
> > I'm a bit on the fence about this, I hadn't thought about it on the
> > prior -next PR much, but I feel like this is a process thing that
> > shouldn't get recorded in the tag for posterity?
> > 
> > I do appreciate the inclusion of this (*especially* when I won't notice
> > the merge conflict myself), but I tend to think it should be in the
> > email rather than the tag message, since the latter is something I use
> > for the merge commit message and it gets recorded.
> > 
> > Either way I have to preserve it manually to the next level, so it
> > doesn't really help all that much, although I guess in the tag there's a
> > chance I could see it again when preparing my PR.
> > 
> > I'll just edit it out this time I think since it's so long, but you can
> > complain and convince me otherwise for the next time ;-)
> 
> In retrospect I made one bad decision.

FTR, I didn't meant to imply that you made a bad choice here - including
this information was valuable. I just didn't think it needs to be in the
tag message, as outlined.

And I was scratching my head over what you said below when I read your
mail earlier, and again now, until I looked back at git ...

> I modified the commit text of that
> patch in my "pending" branch to add the conflict resolution information.

I hadn't even noticed _that_! I only noticed it in the merge / tag
message, not in the individual commit.

> Instead of that, I should have reposted the "pending" version with that
> conflict resolution embedded in the "basement" of the patch so that then it
> would be part of the email record on lore but not part of the patch record in
> git. And then for the tag I could have referred to that lore link in the PR
> email. So this was a good learning lesson for me.

Makes sense.

Do you just want to redo it? I don't mind backing it out, nobody pulled
my tree yet I'd think?

> Hopefully these merge conflicts will be much fewer once the refactored ath12k
> lands in Linus' tree in the next merge window.

Right.

johannes