dim question: How to revert patches?

[Helge Deller]

Hi Daniel,

On 4/27/22 16:21, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:37:55PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
>> Hello dri-devel & dim users,
>
> Apologies for late reply, I'm way behind on stuff.
>
>> I committed this patch to the drm-misc-next branch:
>>
>> commit d6cd978f7e6b6f6895f8d0c4ce6e5d2c8e979afe
>>     video: fbdev: fbmem: fix pointer reference to null device field
>>
>> then I noticed that it was fixed already in another branch which led to this error:
>>
>> Merging drm-misc/drm-misc-next... dim:
>> dim: FAILURE: Could not merge drm-misc/drm-misc-next
>> dim: See the section "Resolving Conflicts when Rebuilding drm-tip"
>> dim: in the drm-tip.rst documentation for how to handle this situation.
>>
>> I fixed it by reverting that patch above with this new commit in the drm-misc-next branch:
>>
>> commit cabfa2bbe617ddf0a0cc4d01f72b584dae4939ad (HEAD -> drm-misc-next, drm-misc/for-linux-next, drm-misc/drm-misc-next)
>> Author: Helge Deller <deller at gmx.de>
>>     Revert "video: fbdev: fbmem: fix pointer reference to null device field"
>>
>> My question (as "dim" newbie):
>> Was that the right solution?
>
> The patch wasn't really broken, so revert feels a bit silly. The hint was
> to look at the documentation referenced by the error message - the issue
> was only in rebuilding the integration tree:
>
> https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-tip.html#resolving-conflicts-when-rebuilding-drm-tip
>
> This should cover you even for really rare conflict situations.
>
>> Is there a possibility to drop those two patches from the drm-misc-next branch before it gets pushed upstream?
>
> It's a shared tree, mistakes are forever. The only time we did a forced
> push ever is when someone managed to push their local pile of hacks or
> something, and we're catching those pretty well now with a server-side
> test to make sure you're using dim to push.
>
> It's also no big deal, and next time you get a conflict just resolve it
> in drm-tip per the docs and it's all fine.

Thanks for the feedback!
So, basically I think I did the right thing (although a revert isn't nice).
There was no other useful fixup I could have come up with, because the other conflicting
patch had the right & better solution already pushed.

Helge