linux-kernel - Re: (subset) [PATCH v4 0/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: PCIe fixes and GICv3 ITS enable

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]

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:52:36 +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 Wilczyński <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 10:16:16AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 09:40, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> OK, it does solve some parts of our discussion but does not solve my
> earlier comment: Fixes should be separate series. Certain folks have
> quite strict requirement on this. Try sending a fix with non-fix
> (depending on fix somehow like here) to Mark Brown. He has even template
> for such case...

That's not a general rule at all.

> > 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.
> 
> The dependency is might not be good enough reason to combine fixes and
> non-fixes into one series. Dependency should be explained (in 5th
> patch), but it's maintainer's judgement and job to handle this.

FFS, I'm posting a series adding a new feature, which depends on first
addressing a few related bugs. I post everything together so that it can
be evaluated and tested together. That's perfectly fine, and not that
different from how we post driver and dts changes in one series to
facilitate review. Some maintainers don't like that either, then we deal
with that.

Johan