On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:01:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 11:56 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > That's still sending a change of course which was what was being
> > objected to.

> Lesser of two evils? I can't really come up with a safer solution rather than
> reverting it (not blindly, the revert will need an ack too, and that's assuming
> that the fix is not trivial).

AFAICT any change of any kind would have got the same response.