[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y2j3yKkzkZFXKjDh@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 13:19:20 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc: James Clark <james.clark@....com>, stable@...nel.org,
Aishwarya TCV <Aishwarya.TCV@....com>,
Cristian Marussi <Cristian.Marussi@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10] coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 11:15:35AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 07/11/2022 10:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:59:24AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > On 07/11/2022 09:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:23:26AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > > > On 07/11/2022 09:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:20:03AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
> > > > > > > commit 6746eae4bbaddcc16b40efb33dab79210828b3ce upstream.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Isn't this commit 665c157e0204176023860b51a46528ba0ba62c33 instead?
> > > > >
> > > > > This was reverted in commit d76308f03ee1 and pushed in later
> > > > > with fixups as 6746eae4bbadd.
> > > >
> > > > So which should be applied?
> > >
> > > Sorry, this particular post is a backport for v5.10 stable branch.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > confused,
> > >
> > > Now I am too. What is expected here ? My understanding is, we
> > > should stick the "upstream" commit that is getting backported
> > > at the beginning of the commit description. In that sense,
> > > the commit id in this patch looks correct to me. Please let
> > > me know if this is not the case.
> > >
> > > As such, this is only for 5.10.x branch. The rest are taken
> > > care of.
> > >
> > > Please let us know if we are something missing.
> >
> > We already have commit 665c157e0204176023860b51a46528ba0ba62c33 queued
> > up in the 5.10 stable queue. Is that not correct? It has the same
>
> We pushed the fix as part of the coresight fixes for 6.1 [0], as
>
> commit: 6746eae4bbad "coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()"
>
>
> But, the version in there, produced a build warning with "unused
> variable" (with CONFIG_WERROR) [1] and thus was reverted in [2],
>
> commit: d76308f03ee1: Revert "coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()"
>
>
> Later, we sent you the corrected fix separately [3], which was queued as
> commit "6746eae4bbadd".
>
> 6746eae4bbad coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()
>
> So, in effect, here is what we have in the tree :
>
> $ git log --oneline | grep "cti: Fix"
> 6746eae4bbad coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()
> d76308f03ee1 Revert "coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()"
> 665c157e0204 coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()
>
> > subject line as this one.
>
> I understand the "same" subject line has caused this confusion. Will
> modify it in the future avoid this confusion.
>
> So, kindly drop "665c157e0204" from the queue for 5.10, it would fail to
> apply there anyway so does the correct "6746eae4bbad". This backport
> is appropriate for 5.10 branch, with the correct version.
Ok, I dropped 665c157e0204 from the queue, but note that it _was_
backported there properly. But only there, which is odd, Sasha's
scripts might not have caught up.
I'll queue this one up now instead.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists