linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the samsung-krzk 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: <04f3ea15-7526-4a5a-8cc8-dceafcf67c1d@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:50:17 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the samsung-krzk tree

On 17/10/2023 11:42, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:01:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> The following commit is also in the arm-soc tree as a different commit
>> (but the same patch):
>>
>>   0da7c05d232d ("soc: samsung: exynos-chipid: Convert to platform remove callback returning void")
>>
>> This is commit
>>
>>   55fa358ca89f ("soc: samsung: exynos-chipid: Convert to platform remove callback returning void")
>>
>> in the arm-soc tree.
> 
> a few more details that I worked out for this situation, so (hopefully)
> others don't have to duplicate this effort:
> 
> The commit in the samsung-krzk tree was applied by Krzysztof at Sep 28
> and sent later (Oct 16) as a patch to Arnd (and others) in reply to a PR
> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231016072911.27148-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/)
> and without further explanation.
> 
> My guess is that the patch in question wasn't applied to a topic branch
> but to Krzysztof's for-next directly and so was missed to be included in
> the PR. Or it was on a topic branch but as the only patch on that and so
> it was sent out individually. I'd expect that 0da7c05d232d won't make it
> into the mainline.

The patch was the only one on topic branch, thus I sent it as a patch,
not as a pull request. It standard stuff. I dropped it today to avoid
any confusion, but anyway there would be no risk of this patch appearing
twice in mainline.

Best regards,
Krzysztof