[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2131754563.27779.1698751840800.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:30:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mtd tree with the vfs-brauner
tree
Christian,
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Christian Brauner" <brauner@...nel.org>
>> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
>> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
>> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
>> >>
>> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
>> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
>> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
>> >> is not suitable for stable either.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
>> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
>> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
>> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
>>
>> Yep, let's try this route. :-)
>
> Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
> not? :)
No, just keep Jan's patch. (-:
Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists