linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / EC: Clear stale EC events on Samsung systems

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 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:	Wed, 05 Mar 2014 22:36:05 -0300
From:	Juan Manuel Cabo <juanmanuel.cabo@...il.com>
To:	Kieran Clancy <clancy.kieran@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Guang <lig.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
	Dennis Jansen <dennis.jansen@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / EC: Clear stale EC events on Samsung systems

Beware, the context line:        
             static struct dmi_system_id ec_dmi_table[] __initdata = {
has changed in recent kernels, so that line of the patch would need
to be different for it to apply older kernels.
It used to be this:
             static struct dmi_system_id __initdata ec_dmi_table[] = {
until 3.11 I guess.

It is just a context line and is not important for the patch itself.

See:
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/acpi/ec.c?v=3.11
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/acpi/ec.c?v=3.12

Cheers!
--Juan Manuel Cabo


On 03/05/2014 10:24 PM, Kieran Clancy wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:04:14 AM Kieran Clancy wrote:
>>> Rafael, is it a separate process to get this in the stable tree or
>>> will it naturally happen after being merged into the mainline?
>> I need to add a proper "CC stable" tag to your patch for this to happen.
>>
>> Which -stable kernels should it go to?
> 3.2 and 3.10 seem like natural choices (3.4?), but I don't know the
> norm for this kind of fix. Would there be any reason not to include it
> in some particular stable kernels?
>
> Cheers,
> Kieran.
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/