linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pxa: pxa2xx: Remove 'pxa2xx_pinctrl

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, 04 Jun 2020 04:08:32 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pxa: pxa2xx: Remove 'pxa2xx_pinctrl_exit()'
 which is unused and broken

On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 12:33 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 11:52 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > Should Fixes also be used when the change will make it hard to port other
> > > fixes over it?
> > 
> > If it's a logic defect or regression that's being fixed,
> > shouldn't the logic defect or regression be fixed as
> > reasonably soon as possible?
> 
> Sure, but I recall seeing some patches that mentioned that the problem had
> existed since the beginning of git.  Of course, it should be rare.

git history goes back 15 years already.
There are scant few bugs that old.

There is a tree with even older history that Rob Landley
still has here: https://landley.net/kdocs/fullhist/

It does make git blame research a bit easier for those
rare and extremely old defects.

> > The nature of the fix should ideally be optimal for
> > backporting, but I believe that should not stop any
> > consideration for the standalone fix itself.
> 
> I'm not sure to follow this.

I think it comes down to defects in current need to be
fixed.  Describing
the base commit that is being fixed
is useful for backporting.

I believe it's not reasonable to ask the author of a
fix to research how it could or should be backported.

> Sometimes non-bug fixes that block
> backporting a bug fix have to be backported as well.  So the fixes would
> again highlight the range of versions affected by the issue.

Sure, but the non-bug fixes that may also need backporting
to enable easy backports of the actual fix should not be
described in the Fixes: <commit> as those are  generally
easily researched from a command like:

$ git log <commit>.. <files in fix>

by whoever needs to backport.