linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: ppc4xx: Fix fallout from rename in struct spi

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: <6nqpvqodqhk5vwwqgdez2lwsdlh4xrzfstkaf7o2mjz46ub2xf@zjacuzux5jdm>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:45:05 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, 
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, 
	H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de, 
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: ppc4xx: Fix fallout from rename in struct
 spi_bitbang

Hello,

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:50:15PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:23:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
> > Assuming we don't want to have this problem in v6.8, I suggest to revert
> > de4af897ddf2 and reapply it on top of your next branch.
> 
> BTW the issue here is that you sent this without comment in the middle
> of a series of fixes the other two of which *do* apply to mainline,
> ideally it would have just been sent separately since it needs to go
> separately but if you *are* going to send a single series like this
> things that are -next only should go after any fixes that are for
> mainline.

I expected that adding Fixes lines is enough documentation but I agree
that in retrospect it would have been a good idea to mention the
expected target branch for each patch. I'm willing to take half of the
blame you assigned me as in retrospect double checking the Fixes lines
or doing a compile test of the ppc4xx driver would also have been a good
idea for you as maintainer applying the patches. Sorry for my
contribution to this problem. I only looked at next when I sent the
patches and wasn't aware of the trip wire that git applies patch 2 just
fine to mainline though it's not right to put it there.

I ordered patch 3 at the end because I didn't consider this an urgent
fix as it only addresses a W=1 warning that we lived with for over 10
years since v3.11-rc1.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)