[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20241029133141.45335-1-pchelkin@ispras.ru>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:31:40 +0300
From: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>
Cc: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>,
Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@....com>,
Leo Li <sunpeng.li@....com>,
Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@....com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
"Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@....com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Fangzhi Zuo <Jerry.Zuo@....com>,
Wayne Lin <wayne.lin@....com>,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lvc-project@...uxtesting.org,
Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
Jonathan Gray <jsg@....id.au>
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] On DRM -> stable process
Hi all,
I'm writing as a bystander working with 6.1.y stable branch and possibly
lacking some context with the established DRM -> stable patch flow, Cc'ing
a large number of people.
The commit being reverted from 6.1.y is the one that duplicates the
changes already backported to that branch with another commit. It is
essentially a "similar" commit but cherry-picked at some point during the
DRM development process.
The duplicate has no runtime effect but should not actually remain in the
stable trees. It was already reverted [1] from 6.6/6.10/6.11 but still made
its way later to 6.1.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20241007035711.46624-1-jsg@jsg.id.au/T/#u
At [1] Greg KH also stated that the observed problems are quite common
while backporting DRM patches to stable trees. The current duplicate patch
has in every sense a cosmetic impact but in other circumstances and for
other patches this may have gone wrong.
So, is there any way to adjust this process?
BTW, a question to the stable-team: what Git magic (3-way-merge?) let the
duplicate patch be applied successfully? The patch context in stable trees
was different to that moment so should the duplicate have been expected to
fail to be applied?
--
Fedor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists