Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 1/3] test_firmware: prevent race conditions by a correct implementation of locking

From: Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@alu.unizg.hr>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 1/3] test_firmware: prevent race conditions by a correct implementation of locking
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:29:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a09b4fa3-d6dc-b7a9-f815-d6f43211910b@alu.unizg.hr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZMb3Yf4km8NTeMZj@bombadil.infradead.org>

On 31.7.2023. 1:50, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 11:17:45AM +0200, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>> ---
>> v5.1
>>   resending to v5.4 stable branch verbatim according to Luis Chamberlain instruction
> 
> If this is a backport of an upstream patch you must mention the commit
> ID at the top. After
> 
> For instance, here is a random commit from v5.15.y branch for stable:
> 
> bpf: Add selftests to cover packet access corner cases
>          
> commit b560b21f71eb4ef9dfc7c8ec1d0e4d7f9aa54b51 upstream.
> 
> <the upstream commit log>

Hello,

I have reviewed the module again and I found no new weaknesses, so it is only
a backport from the same commit in torvalds, master, 6.4, 6.1, 5.15 and
5.10 trees/branches.

This is a bit confusing and I am doing this for the first time. In fact, there
was probably a glitch in the patchwork because the comment to the
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org said "# 5.4" ...

However, I do not know which commit ID to refer to:

torvalds 4acfe3dfde685a5a9eaec5555351918e2d7266a1
master   4acfe3dfde685a5a9eaec5555351918e2d7266a1
6.4      4acfe3dfde685a5a9eaec5555351918e2d7266a1
6.1      6111f0add6ffc93612d4abe9fec002319102b1c0
5.15     bfb0b366e8ec23d9a9851898d81c829166b8c17b
5.10     af36f35074b10dda0516cfc63d209accd4ef4d17

Each of the branches 6.4, 6.1, 5.15 and 5.10 appear to have a different commit
ID.

Probably the right commit ID should be:

test_firmware: prevent race conditions by a correct implementation of locking

commit 4acfe3dfde685a5a9eaec5555351918e2d7266a1 master

Will the patchwork figure this out or should I RESEND with a clean slate?

But first I would appreciate a confirmation that I did it right this time ...

Thanks,
Mirsad

> If you make modifications to the patch to apply to v5.4.y which
> otherwise would let the patch apply you need to specify that in
> the commit log, you could do that after your signed-off-by, for
> instance you can:
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@alu.unizg.hr>
> [made some x, y and z changes to ensure it applies to v5.4.y]
> 
> If this is a new commit for a fix not yet merged on Linus tree
> then your description quoted above does not make it clear.
> 
>    Luis

-- 
Mirsad Todorovac
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb
Republic of Croatia, the European Union

Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu