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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:37:04 +0100 From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mmc: block: don't use parameter prefix if built as module" On 12 February 2016 at 17:32, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:06:03AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 11 February 2016 at 18:19, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 04:54:11PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> This reverts commit 829b6962f7e3cfc06f7c5c26269fd47ad48cf503. >> >> >> >> Revert this change as it causes a sysfs path to change and therefore >> >> introduces and ABI regression. More precisely Android's vold is not being >> >> able to access /sys/module/mmcblk/parameters/perdev_minors any more, since >> >> the path becomes changed to: "/sys/module/mmc_block/..." >> >> >> >> Fixes: 829b6962f7e3 ("mmc: block: don't use parameter prefix if built as >> >> module") >> >> Reported-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> >> >> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> >> > >> > Please also add a "cc: stable..." tag to the patch so it gets picked up >> > in stable kernel releases. >> >> Doesn't the Fixes tag take care of that? > > Not at all, never rely on that, please read > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to properly tag a patch > for a stable release. > > Sometimes I get bored and look at patches with only a fixes: tag on them > to see how bad the maintainer is messing up and then do their work for > them, but that's rare these days... That's sounds like you do this entirely manually, I doubt you have time for that? :-) So, isn't it quite simple to automate this thing, as all the information you need (ideally) is to know what commit is being fixed. Right? Kind regards Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists