linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.17 34/49] spi: cadence-quadspi: fix protocol setup for non-1-1-X operations

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]

Message-ID: <YlyHqKVBC9u1F9xS@sashalap>
Date:   Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:33:28 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.17 34/49] spi: cadence-quadspi: fix protocol
 setup for non-1-1-X operations

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 01:07:09PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 01:49:19PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>
>Please don't top post, reply in line with needed context.  This allows
>readers to readily follow the flow of conversation and understand what
>you are talking about and also helps ensure that everything in the
>discussion is being addressed.
>
>> what's your plan regarding this patch and the other patch I sent [1]? I
>> think there has been some confusion regarding which solution we want to
>> backport to stable kernels (well, at least I'm confused...)
>
>Well, it's up to the stable people what they choose to backport -
>they're generally fairly aggressive about what they pick up so I guess
>they want to take this one?
>
>> I'm fine with this patch getting backported, but in that case [1]
>> doesn't make sense anymore (in fact I expected this patch to be dropped
>> for now when I submitted [1], due to Pratyush Yadav's concerns).
>
>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/spi-devel-general/patch/20220406132832.199777-1-matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com/
>
>For the benefit of those playing at home that's "spi: cadence-quadspi:
>fix incorrect supports_op() return value".  It's much more the sort of
>thing I'd expect to see backported to stable so it seems good from that
>point of view.

I'm a bit confused as I don't see the other patch in Linus's tree?

I'll queue this one up then...

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha