linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "nvmem: add new config option"

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]

Message-ID: <2023102113-posted-pronounce-97fb@gregkh>
Date:   Sat, 21 Oct 2023 22:51:32 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Cc:     srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "nvmem: add new config option"

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:31:55PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 2023-10-21 19:18, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:55:43AM +0100, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org
> > wrote:
> > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> > > 
> > > This reverts commit 517f14d9cf3533d5ab4fded195ab6f80a92e378f.
> > > 
> > > It seems that "no_of_node" config option was added to help mtd's case.
> > > 
> > > DT nodes of MTD partitions (that are also NVMEM devices) may contain
> > > subnodes that SHOULD NOT be treated as NVMEM fixed cells. To prevent
> > > NVMEM core code from parsing them "no_of_node" was set to true and
> > > that
> > > made for_each_child_of_node() in NVMEM a no-op.
> > > 
> > > With the introduction of "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" config option
> > > things got more explicit. MTD subsystem simply tells NVMEM when to
> > > look
> > > for fixed cells and there is no need to hack "of_node" pointer
> > > anymore.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> > > Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
> > 
> > Why isn't this also marked for stable trees?
> 
> I think it's explained in commit message but maybe it's not clear
> enough?

It's not, I just read it again and can't figure it out, sorry.

> This revert (PATCH 4/6) is possible only with the previous PATCH 2/6
> applied first. In other words "no_of_node" config option can be dropped
> only after adding "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" config option.

Ah, ok, that's not obvious :)

> Since adding "add_legacy_fixed_of_cells" is not a bug/regression fix I
> didn't mark it for stable and so I couldn't mark revert for stable.

That's fine, but can you please resend this with a better changelog that
makes it obvious why now we can revert the old patch, otherwise the
autobot will come along and attempt to backport it to stable as well.

thanks,

greg k-h