linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 095/108] Bluetooth: btusb: Restore QCA Rome suspend/resume fix with a "rewritten" version

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: <befd1dc3-32ee-bd00-876e-a59397cffd37@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sat, 17 Feb 2018 07:12:17 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Leif Liddy <leif.linux@...il.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
        Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 095/108] Bluetooth: btusb: Restore QCA Rome
 suspend/resume fix with a "rewritten" version

On 02/17/2018 05:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:52:20AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:10:44AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 07:48:50AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 06:31:48PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:17:32PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider this an objection:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm currently arguing that this is unnecessarily regressing power
>>>>> consumption here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10149195/
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll leave it up to you what to do with this, but if this ends up in
>>>>> Chromium OS kernels, I'm likely to revert it there...
>>>>
>>>> Is that patch in Linus's tree yet?  If so, I'll be glad to also apply it
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> The link is the original patch, where I'm (too late?) complaining about
>>> its side effects. Hans and Marcel are discussing potential alternatives.
>>> This stuff happens in -rc kernels. But you're already ready to push it
>>> out to -stable users? I can try to push another few reverts into Linus's
>>> tree if that really helps, or else you can wait on pushing these to
>>> -stable until 4.16 settles down.
>>
>> FWIW, here are the various commit SHAs.
>>
>> Upstream:			61f5acea8737
>> v4.15 (queued for v4.15.4):	e766a2d7f7c2
>> v4.14 (queued for v4.14.20):	736385472dfa
>> v4.9 (queued for v4.9.82):	1c6fc2167678
>> v4.4 (queued for v4.4.116):	575538a5371d
>>
>> I didn't check older stable kernels.
> 
> Thanks, but I've now released all of these with this patch committed, so
> we are now "bug compatible" :)
> 

FWIW, seems to me that trying to be "bug compatible" with -rc1 upstream
kernels may not really be a good idea for stable releases.

Guenter