linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] arm: dts: imx7-colibri: remove spurious debounce property

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: <20220921121505.GA41442@francesco-nb.int.toradex.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:15:05 +0200
From:   Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
To:     Marcel Ziswiler <marcel@...wiler.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] arm: dts: imx7-colibri: remove spurious debounce
 property

+Greg, to get an opinion on the fixes tag.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:22:27AM +0200, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>
> 
> Remove spurious debounce property from linux,extcon-usb-gpio.
> 
> Note that debouncing is hard-coded to 20 ms (USB_GPIO_DEBOUNCE_MS
> define).
> 
> Fixes: 0ef1969ea569 ("ARM: dts: imx7-colibri: move aliases, chosen, extcon and gpio-keys")
> Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>

Hello all,
we did have some (internal) discussion if this patch should have the
fixes tag or not.

I do personally think it should not have it and should not be backported
to stable tree, since this is not fixing a real bug, it's just a
cleanup.

On the other hand the original patch was not correct, and this change is
making it right.

What is the general opinion on this topic? What do the stable kernel
maintainers would expect?

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst is about rules for
backporting, it does not really talk about the fixes tag, but today this
is used to decide if a patch should be backported or not.

Francesco