[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8eaefe77-8cdf-1da5-f573-633713598eb6@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:58:44 +0200
From: Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Donnellan <ajd@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 101/330] powerpc/powernv/ioda: Fix ref count
for devices with their own PE
Le 19/09/2020 à 20:10, Sasha Levin a écrit :
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 08:35:06AM +0200, Frederic Barrat wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 18/09/2020 à 03:57, Sasha Levin a écrit :
>>> From: Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit 05dd7da76986937fb288b4213b1fa10dbe0d1b33 ]
>>>
>>
>> This patch is not desirable for stable, for 5.4 and 4.19 (it was
>> already flagged by autosel back in April. Not sure why it's showing
>> again now)
>
> Hey Fred,
>
> This was a bit of a "lie", it wasn't a run of AUTOSEL, but rather an
> audit of patches that went into distro/vendor trees but not into the
> upstream stable trees.
>
> I can see that this patch was pulled into Ubuntu's 5.4 tree, is it not
> needed in the upstream stable tree?
That patch in itself is useless (it replaces a ref counter leak by
another one). It was part of a longer series that we backported to
Ubuntu's 5.4 tree.
So it's really not needed on the stable trees. It likely wouldn't hurt
or break anything, but there's really no point.
Fred
Powered by blists - more mailing lists