Re: [RFC PATCH 03/86] Revert "ftrace: Use preemption model accessors for trace header printout"

[Ankur Arora]

Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 18:31:54 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 15:23:05 -0800
>> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > Or would you prefer these not be reverted (and reapplied) at all -- just fixed
>> > as you describe here?
>>
>> Yes, exactly that.
>>
>
> Note, a revert usually means, "get rid of something because it's broken", it
> shouldn't be used for "I'm implementing this differently, and need to
> remove the old code first"
>
> For the latter case, just remove what you don't need for the reason why
> it's being removed. Reverting commits is confusing, because when you see a
> revert in a git log, you think that commit was broken and needed to be taken
> out.

Ack that. And, agree, it did feel pretty odd to revert so many good commits.
I guess in that sense it makes sense to minimize the number of reverts.

There are some that I suspect I will have to revert. Will detail specifically
why they are being reverted.

Thanks
--
ankur