From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:53315 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753607AbbE1JBH (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2015 05:01:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:01:02 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Gregory Clement , Lior Amsalem , Tawfik Bayouk , Boris Brezillon , stable@vger.kernel.org, Nadav Haklai , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Revert "bus: mvebu-mbus: make sure SDRAM CS for DMA don't overlap the MBus bridge window" Message-ID: <20150528110102.10cb2e85@free-electrons.com> In-Reply-To: <2099675.EoA8CYtzXr@wuerfel> References: <1432802414-12355-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1432802414-12355-3-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <2099675.EoA8CYtzXr@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Arnd, On Thu, 28 May 2015 10:49:46 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 28 May 2015 10:40:13 Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Fixes: 1737cac69369 ("bus: mvebu-mbus: make sure SDRAM CS for DMA don't overlap the MBus bridge window") > > Cc: # v4.0+ > > --- > > drivers/bus/mvebu-mbus.c | 105 ++++++++--------------------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-) > > Hmm, the stable kernel rules say that a patch cannot exceed 100 > lines with context, so this one is technically too large. Ah, okay, I didn't know about this specific rule. > Maybe Greg has a suggestion about what to do here. Is it possible > to make an exception for a revert? In theory you could make a > smaller version of the patch that adds an #if 0 instead of removing > some of the code that was added, in order to get below the limit, > but that seems counterproductive for minimizing the possible risk. In the specific case of such an exact revert, isn't it possible to make an exception? I guess the very reason we have rules is to have exceptions for such rules, no? :-) It would really be more logical to have a revert than a different patch just disabling the change, since it would actually be more risky than just reverting to the previous situation. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:01:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Revert "bus: mvebu-mbus: make sure SDRAM CS for DMA don't overlap the MBus bridge window" In-Reply-To: <2099675.EoA8CYtzXr@wuerfel> References: <1432802414-12355-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1432802414-12355-3-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <2099675.EoA8CYtzXr@wuerfel> Message-ID: <20150528110102.10cb2e85@free-electrons.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Arnd, On Thu, 28 May 2015 10:49:46 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 28 May 2015 10:40:13 Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Fixes: 1737cac69369 ("bus: mvebu-mbus: make sure SDRAM CS for DMA don't overlap the MBus bridge window") > > Cc: # v4.0+ > > --- > > drivers/bus/mvebu-mbus.c | 105 ++++++++--------------------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-) > > Hmm, the stable kernel rules say that a patch cannot exceed 100 > lines with context, so this one is technically too large. Ah, okay, I didn't know about this specific rule. > Maybe Greg has a suggestion about what to do here. Is it possible > to make an exception for a revert? In theory you could make a > smaller version of the patch that adds an #if 0 instead of removing > some of the code that was added, in order to get below the limit, > but that seems counterproductive for minimizing the possible risk. In the specific case of such an exact revert, isn't it possible to make an exception? I guess the very reason we have rules is to have exceptions for such rules, no? :-) It would really be more logical to have a revert than a different patch just disabling the change, since it would actually be more risky than just reverting to the previous situation. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com