linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.17 128/135] hwmon: Make chip parameter for with

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:   Mon, 30 May 2022 20:00:44 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     jdelvare@...e.com, corbet@....net, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.17 128/135] hwmon: Make chip parameter for
 with_info API mandatory

On 5/30/22 19:38, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 5/30/22 21:27, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 5/30/22 06:31, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit ddaefa209c4ac791c1262e97c9b2d0440c8ef1d5 ]
>>>
>>> Various attempts were made recently to "convert" the old
>>> hwmon_device_register() API to devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info()
>>> by just changing the function name without actually converting the
>>> driver. Prevent this from happening by making the 'chip' parameter of
>>> devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info() mandatory.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
>>
>> This patch should not be backported. It is only relevant for new
>> kernel releases, and may have adverse affect if applied to older
>> kernels.
> 
> So this patch is meant to be backported to 5.18 only, right?
> 

I said "do not backport". I specifically asked not to backport
this patch. It does not include Cc: stable, and it does not
include a Fixes: tag. I even said "... may have adverse affect
if applied to older kernels".

I have no idea how that can be interpreted as "backport to 5.18".
Did I miss the explicit "do not backport to 5.18 ?" If so, my bad.

Ok, here it is a more explicit request:

Do not backport this patch to 5.18.y, 5.17.y, 5.15.y, 5.10.y, 5.4.y,
4.19.y, 4.14.y, 4.9.y, or any other stable release.

Guenter