linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/20] ARM: dts: aspeed-g4: Correct VUART IRQ number

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:38:18 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Patrick Venture <venture@...gle.com>, Xo Wang <xow@...gle.com>,
        Lei YU <mine260309@...il.com>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>, DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/20] ARM: dts: aspeed-g4: Correct VUART IRQ number

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> wrote:
>>> This should have always been 8.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
>>
>> As this is a bugfix, should we backport it to stable kernels? When you
>> fix a bug,
>> I generally recommend including a 'Fixes' tag with the commit ID of the patch
>> that introduced the problem, and either a 'Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org' tag
>> if you want it backported, or an explanation in the changelog why it should
>> not get backported. This really helps Greg and the other stable maintainers
>> trying to make a decision what to backport and what not.
>
> We could do this, and I generally follow the practice of adding Fixes
> tags. I hadn't because without an upstream clock driver, the Aspeed
> port is not usable by anyone without making modifications. We're
> really depending on getting that code merged.
>
> I will send it as a fix to 4.15. Do you mind taking individual patches
> for the arm dt tree, or would you prefer a pull request?

For bugfixes, we don't distinguish between DT and other fixes. If it's
a single patch, a pull request works just as well as a emailed patch,
your choice.

      Arnd