Re: [PATCH v2 00/33] locking/atomic: convert all architectures to ARCH_ATOMIC

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 09:29:12PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:01:59PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Note: I've generated the patches with:
> > >
> > >   git format-patch -C -M -D
> > >
> > > ... so the preimage of include/linux/atomic-fallback.h is not included
> > > in the diff when it is deleted.
> > ...
> > Junio; can we get something like the below sorted?
> 
> Funny, I recently looked at "git format-patch --help" and read that "-D"
> is explicitly described as "The resulting patch is not meant to be applied
> with patch or git apply; this is solely for people who want to just
> concentrate on reviewing the text after the change."

Yeah, I read that too; but like I said, I feel strongly that anything
generated by git-format-patch should be accepted by git-apply (albeit
with a --do-what-I-want argument, I agree that -D output should never be
applied without express permission).

> So, no, I think it is anti-social to send such a patch generated with -D
> unless it is purely for discussion. The side that generates the patch
> should be told to drop "-D" when running the format-patch command,
> or perhaps format-patch should be taught to error out when "-D" is
> given, perhaps?

Removing -D from git-format-patch works too, although I rather like not
seeing the '-' for the entire files. I really don't care much for the
reversible thing, I already have the content, I can zap the commit to
get it back.


I'll leave it up to you, either remove -D from format-patch, or add an
option to apply to force accept it.