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: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:40:40 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof WilczyƄski <kw@...ux.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v4 0/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: PCIe fixes
 and GICv3 ITS enable

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:24:54AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 09:18, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > Perhaps you should not comment before reading up on the history of this
> > series.
> > 
> > This was all intended for 6.9, but merging was stalled for a number of
> > reasons so here we are. The patches were also going in through different
> > trees, so patch 4/5 is the first Qualcomm SoC patch.
> 
> Again, well, you sent it at few days before merge window, so how do you
> imagine this being applied for v6.9 and still fulfilling "few linux-next
> cycles before merge window" requirement? Especially that arm-soc cut off
> is much earlier :/. I talk about patch 5, of course, because that is not
> a fix (at least not marked as one). Don't expect in general a arms-co
> patch to be applied four days before merge window, thus the actual fix -
> patch #4 - should be split.

At the time there was still hope that there may be an rc8, and the patch
in question had been used by a large number of X13s users for several
weeks, which is a lot more testing than the average Qualcomm patch
receives, whether it's in linux-next or not.

And patch 5 depends on the earlier patches in the series so it belongs
in the series, which was also initially posted long before the merge
window.

I'm sure Bjorn A can handle this in general, even if he failed to notice
the CC stable tag or had other reasons for applying the fix for 6.10
instead of 6.9.

Johan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ