linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: pmc_atom: Add Lex 3I380D industrial PC to critclk

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:   Wed, 8 May 2019 16:23:56 -0700
From:   Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Kai Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Semyon Verchenko <semverchenko@...tor-ts.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: pmc_atom: Add Lex 3I380D industrial PC to
 critclk_systems DMI table

On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 03:55:22PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:20:52AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 08-05-19 10:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:48 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > On 07-05-19 22:17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Hans de Goede (2019-05-06 08:05:42)
> > > 
> > > > > I guess this is urgent?
> > > > 
> > > > Somewhat, getting this into e.g. rc2 would be fine too, waiting till 5.3
> > > > would be bad.
> > > 
> > > So, I can do it as a fixes for rc2, just ping me after merge window.
> > 
> > Ok, will do.
> 
> Andy, what is the issue here? If the dependency is in v5.1 we can do a "merge
> --ff-only v5.1" in our for-next branch in order to pull it in, that would be the
> same as an immutable branch basically.
> 

A simpler solution for this case would be to issue two PRs to Linus from two
different branches. Other subsystems send topic branches, so this isn't out of
the ordinary.

I have merged the two patches in question from Hans and Steffen to for-next-2.

We could send two PRs back to back, with a note to Linus why this is a bit
different than usual, and then come back together in our for-next and fixes
branches once both are merged and continue as usual.

Any concerns with this approach?

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center