netdev - Re: [PATCH net] r8169: fix ASPM-related problem for chip version 42 and 43

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]

Message-ID: <a42f129b-d64b-2d86-0758-143e99a534a0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:34:17 +0200
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, joey.joey586@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] r8169: fix ASPM-related problem for chip version 42
 and 43

On 14.07.2023 08:30, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 14.07.23 07:34, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 14.07.2023 05:31, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>>> On 13.07.23 21:46, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>
>>>> Fixes: 5fc3f6c90cca ("r8169: consolidate disabling ASPM before EPHY access")
>>>  Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217635 # [0]
>>> A "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" would be nice, too, to get this fixed in
>>> 6.4, where this surfaced (reminder: no, a Fixes: tag is not enough to
>>> ensure the backport there).
>> That's different in the net subsystem. The net (vs. net-next) annotation
>> ensures the backport.
> 
> Huh, how does that work? I thought "net" currently means "for 6.5" while
> "net-next" implies 6.6?
> 

https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt

See question:
I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable.
Should I request it via "stable@...r.kernel.org" like the references in
the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say?

> Ciao, Thorsten

Heiner