linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: use parity8 helper instead of open coding it

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]

Message-ID: <cbd9bbf3-843f-42ea-9651-c35071089210@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:32:20 +0200
From: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: use parity8 helper instead of
 open coding it

On 1/8/25 2:56 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> Stable rules allow also cherry picking additional patches. To me picking
>> patch 1 and 4 sounds better than an intermediate fix since bug has been here
>> from the beginning. IMHO not so urgent than a regression.
> 
> Even then, doesn't that mean that the series needs to be applied
> upstream first before it can go to stable? How to describe the
> dependency commit id otherwise? Either Alexandre adds this when
> applying, or some interested party ;) sends a backport request to
> stable. Or am I missing something?
> 
Yes, the latter case was in my mind that whoever runs this driver on 
earlier stable kernel and has enough devices on the bus where previous 
code will calculate wrong can request the backport or at least be vocal 
about it :-)

I'd say backporting back to 9ad9a52cce28 ("i3c/master: introduce the 
mipi-i3c-hci driver") is also needless because driver needs other fixes 
in order to be really usable.