linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the tegra 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:15:40 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the tegra tree

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 08:47:26AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The following commits are also in Linus Torvalds' tree as different
> commits (but the same patches):
> 
>   0cfe33924cd1 ("dt-bindings: tegra: Document Jetson Orin Nano Developer Kit")
>   9928d6789ac8 ("dt-bindings: gpio: Remove FSI domain ports on Tegra234")
>   f13fe44fff40 ("dt-bindings: tegra: Document Jetson Orin Nano")

Content-wise these should all be equivalent, but the above are from a v2
of the dt-bindings pull request that I had sent. The main difference is
that v2 (specifically commit 9928d6789ac8) has a better explanation of
why the patch is needed and provides background on how the problem came
to be.

v2 of the PR also contains two additional patches that somehow didn't
end up in v1 of the PR somehow. They might have been last-minute
applications after which I forgot to redo the tag. They aren't critical
because no device trees using those bindings have been publicly posted
yet, so I can easily queue them up for v6.6.

Given that v1 of the PR is already in Linus' tree it's probably not
worth doing anything about it. The commit message would've been nice to
have for posterity, but everyone affected is already aware of the
details, so no harm done.

Stephen, do you want me to force-push an old version of the dt-bindings
stuff to my for-next branch, or is it okay if I just push out an update
after v6.5-rc1?

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)