[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210811122702.GA8045@duo.ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 14:27:02 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, jason@...kstrand.net,
Jonathan Gray <jsg@....id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 125/135] drm/i915: avoid uninitialised var in
eb_parse()
On Wed 2021-08-11 09:46:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:28:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > From: Jonathan Gray <jsg@....id.au>
> > >
> > > The backport of c9d9fdbc108af8915d3f497bbdf3898bf8f321b8 to 5.10 in
> > > 6976f3cf34a1a8b791c048bbaa411ebfe48666b1 removed more than it should
> > > have leading to 'batch' being used uninitialised. The 5.13 backport and
> > > the mainline commit did not remove the portion this patch adds back.
> >
> > This patch has no upstream equivalent, right?
> >
> > Which is okay -- it explains it in plain english, but it shows that
> > scripts should not simply search for anything that looks like SHA and
> > treat it as upsteam commit it.
>
> Sounds like you have a broken script if you do it that way.
That is what you told me to do!
https://lore.kernel.org/stable/YQEvUay+1Rzp04SO@kroah.com/
I would happily adapt my script, but there's no
good/documented/working way to determine upstream commit given -stable
commit.
If we could agree on
Commit: (SHA)
in the beggining of body, that would be great.
Upstream: (SHA)
in sign-off area would be even better.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists