linux-kernel - Re: Patch "riscv: topology: fix default topology reporting" has been added to the 6.0-stable tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y0vdSPh3+vDJczzf@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 16 Oct 2022 12:30:32 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc:     Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr, atishp@...osinc.com, sudeep.holla@....com,
        stable-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patch "riscv: topology: fix default topology reporting" has been
 added to the 6.0-stable tree

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 09:58:10AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 16/10/2022 10:32, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > 
> >     riscv: topology: fix default topology reporting
> > 
> > to the 6.0-stable tree which can be found at:
> >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> > 
> > The filename of the patch is:
> >      riscv-topology-fix-default-topology-reporting.patch
> > and it can be found in the queue-6.0 subdirectory.
> > 
> > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> > please let <stable@...r.kernel.org> know about it.
> 
> Hey Greg,
> This breaks the build on 6.0 (and I can only assume on the other
> stable queues too).
> 
> I put:
> > CC: stable@...r.kernel.org # 456797da792f: arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code
> in the patch itself, did I specify the dependency incorrectly?

No, that's my fault, you specified this wonderfully, I just missed it :(

Now fixed up, thanks!

greg k-h