linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: acpi: Move ACPI device NULL check to acpi_can_fallback_to

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: Tue, 21 May 2024 17:00:08 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Laura Nao <laura.nao@...labora.com>, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl, kernel@...labora.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	"kernelci.org bot" <bot@...nelci.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: acpi: Move ACPI device NULL check to
 acpi_can_fallback_to_crs()

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:01:17PM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 13.05.24 12:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:56:10AM +0200, Laura Nao wrote:
> >> Following the relocation of the function call outside of
> >> __acpi_find_gpio(), move the ACPI device NULL check to
> >> acpi_can_fallback_to_crs().
> > 
> > Thank you, I'll add this to my tree as we have already the release happened.
> > I will be available after v6.10-rc1 is out.
> 
> Hmm, what exactly do you mean with that? It sounds as you only want to
> add this to the tree once -rc1 is out -- which seems likely at this
> point, as that patch is not yet in -next. If that's the case allow me to
> ask: why?

Because:

- that's the policy of Linux Next (do not include what's not supposed to be
  merged during merge window), Cc'ed to Stephen to clarify, it might be that
  I'm mistaken

- the process of how we maintain the branches is to have them based on top of
  rc1 (rarely on other rcX and never on an arbitrary commit from vanilla

> I'd say it should be fixes rather sooner than later, as other
> people might run into this as well and then have to deal with bisecing,
> reporting, ...

Yes, but we have a process during merge window, it's special and different
from vX.Y-rc1..vX.Y times.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko