linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "comedi: add HAS

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:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 12:48:34 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc:     H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "comedi: add HAS_IOPORT dependencies"

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 12:39:28PM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 12.09.23 12:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:44:39AM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> >> On 05.09.23 11:09, Ian Abbott wrote:
> >>> This reverts commit b5c75b68b7ded84d4c82118974ce3975a4dcaa74.
> >>>
> >>> The commit makes it impossible to select configuration options that
> >>> depend on COMEDI_8254, COMEDI_DAS08, COMEDI_NI_LABPC, or
> >>> COMEDI_AMPLC_DIO200 options due to changing 'select' directives to
> >>> 'depends on' directives and there being no other way to select those
> >>> codependent configuration options.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: b5c75b68b7de ("comedi: add HAS_IOPORT dependencies")
> >>> Cc: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
> >>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v6.5+
> >>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>
> >>
> >> Hmmm, that fix for a regression from the 6.5 cycle was posted a week ago
> >> but didn't get a single reply afaics and hasn't hit next.
> >>
> >> Greg, is this still in your to-review queue and just delayed due to the
> >> merge window? Or are you waiting for something? A ACK fromn Niklas
> >> maybe? Or a newer patch to address the kernel test robot report in case
> >> its relevant?
> > 
> > The merge window "freeze" ended on Monday, give me a chance to catch up
> > with patches please, this is part of my very large todo mbox:
> > 
> > 	$ mdfrm -c ~/mail/todo/
> > 	1637 messages in /home/gregkh/mail/todo/
> 
> Well, I know that you deal with a lot of patches and often wonder how
> you manage to do all that great work, but nevertheless please allow me
> to ask:
> 
> I assume that that not all of those 1600+ patches are fixes for
> regressions, so should a revert for a very recent regression be in a
> different mbox with a slightly higher priority[1] to get handled before
> the others?

Nope, I lump them all together into one mbox and then sort them when
processing.  Works faster overall for me.  I'll get to it by the end of
this week, hopefully :)

thanks,

greg k-h