linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 105/350] iio: chemical: atlas-ph-sensor: fix iio_triggered_buffer

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:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:34:39 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Matt Ranostay <matt.ranostay@...sulko.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...23.retrosnub.co.uk>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        "open list:IIO SUBSYSTEM AND DRIVERS" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 105/350] iio: chemical: atlas-ph-sensor: fix
 iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() position

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 03:25:27PM -0800, Matt Ranostay wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 7:53 AM Jonathan Cameron
><jic23@...23.retrosnub.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:03:30 -0500
>> Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>
>> >
>> > [ Upstream commit 0c8a6e72f3c04bfe92a64e5e0791bfe006aabe08 ]
>> >
>> > The iio_triggered_buffer_{predisable,postenable} functions attach/detach
>> > the poll functions.
>> >
>> > The iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() should be called last, to detach the
>> > poll func after the devices has been suspended.
>> >
>> > The position of iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() is correct.
>> >
>> > Note this is not stable material. It's a fix in the logical
>> > model rather fixing an actual bug.  These are being tidied up
>> > throughout the subsystem to allow more substantial rework that
>> > was blocked by variations in how things were done.
>>
>> See comment.  This is not what I would consider stable material.
>>
>
>Outside of the comment, which really isn't probably enough to avoid
>the autoselection script from detecting it (could be "stable" in the
>message alone selects it :) ),
>is there any way to signal that a patch is "NOT for stable trees"?
>Probably don't want to clutter up the commit messages of course.

That commit message should have been enough, I'll add some more
filtering to catch instances like that.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha