linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10.y+] PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for platform-dependent sleep states only

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]

Message-ID: <20140905220828.GE18411@ld-irv-0074>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:08:28 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10.y+] PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for
 platform-dependent sleep states only

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:47:58PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:45:12AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:29:09AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote:
> > > On 09/04/2014 11:21 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.10+: 27ddcc6596e5: PM / sleep: Add state field to pm_states[] entries
> > > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.10+
> > > > ---
> > > > This is a backport request for these two commits upstream:
> > > > 
> > > >     27ddcc6596e5 PM / sleep: Add state field to pm_states[] entries
> > > >     43e8317b0bba PM / sleep: Use valid_state() for platform-dependent sleep states only
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't it be cleaner to have 2 separate backports then ?
> > 
> > The first is purely a dependency for the second. It has no value on its
> > own. So I thought the above form made sense and followed the process
> > mentioned in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
> > 
> > Admittedly, it's a little asymmetric. But I really don't know what the
> > "best" option is, since I'd prefer not having to send around any patch
> > text at all, unless the backport is not trivial (these apply cleanly).
> 
> If they apply cleanly, then just list the git commit ids, and I can take
> care of the rest.

OK. Is this a policy that should be documented? AIUI, we have a few
options:

  1. Include 'Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org' in the original commit that
  gets to Linus

  2. Send an email to stable@...r.kernel.org that just contains the
  commit IDs, after they've made it to Linus

  3. Send patches to stable@...r.kernel.org, if backporting is not
  trivial

#1 is most common, and #2 seems like it would handle most of what misses
#1. #3 seems inferior, whenever #2 would suffice. But #2 is not in
stable_kernel_rules.txt.

> Don't merge patches together, it just causes problems and makes it
> harder to track what is going on.

To be clear, the diff I sent is actually just a single patch (the fix);
it is not a squashed version of both. I realize now that this was
probably unclear.

Brian
--
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/