On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:16:07PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 04:48:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:10:22PM +0530, Abdun Nihaal wrote:
> > > This reverts commit eb2cb7dab60f ("staging: fbtft: fix potential memory
> > > leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()").
> > >
> > > An updated patch has been added as commit 505bffe21233 ("staging:
> > > fbtft: fix potential memory leak in fbtft_framebuffer_alloc()"),
> > > and so reverting the old patch.
> >
> > Revert has its automatic line, please do not remove it.
>
> Why?
>
> I hate the revert format. It is from when git was invented in 2005.
> It sets you up for failure. These days we have so many other things
> that we want in patches.
>
> 1) The subsystem prefix in the subject
> 2) The 12 character hashes
> 3) A proper commit message
> 4) A Fixes tag
>
> The automated revert commit messages don't have any of that. It's
> always better to hand write them.
There are tools out there that expect the "traditional" format, so it's
good to keep them if at all possible.
But I agree, for this one it doesn't make sense, just do a fixup patch
on top of the current tree. It's just a staging driver, not a big deal :)
thanks,
greg k-h
