From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A504CC43381 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:08:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72172217F5 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:08:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1551168493; bh=Mgbec2TEBPyCLKgWpBEj43sqXs/m/r6xs9tcdTBQ2AM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=wQxy6wtafWbTH6B3LZu3jzT8Clvn1apkT3Hn8FUMc6bDYHRzIGJnpFcWZ6LOlq/oy BVetkzSTJFDncAQC522MsqhsnRZlVafV2+yG/XnQMTK5E6wPR8mBJdHXhuiuqM7RHf YWJy3TL8Q4faFlC2O0f51K9v7JrJOroGR3tWlRUU= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726895AbfBZIIM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:08:12 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:37186 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726838AbfBZIIM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:08:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (5356596B.cm-6-7b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADE112147C; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:08:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1551168492; bh=Mgbec2TEBPyCLKgWpBEj43sqXs/m/r6xs9tcdTBQ2AM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CRu1jMwXv43t/Z/HVtYf6+Upsr2rAVMMciSm0DHAgxIcKhejf0VmEarfOPp89/HN+ D8fg2RbLAtmW2gb6WLG+PZUQ5tp35N/OJG6eZh1N9oH4OHGwGs7hJQ9A4RROLDgjWH uwIYgIcFPMF5KcQjgB60Gnh79qW/C3Yoc+RGLOZA= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:08:09 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Kevin Hilman Cc: LABBE Corentin , Eugeniy.Paltsev@synopsys.com, vgupta@synopsys.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] ARC: enable uboot support unconditionally" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.20-stable tree? Message-ID: <20190226080809.GA15074@kroah.com> References: <155101646812133@kroah.com> <20190225094347.GA3831@Red> <20190225135400.GA27690@kroah.com> <7h36ob31mc.fsf@baylibre.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7h36ob31mc.fsf@baylibre.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:11:07PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Greg KH writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:43:47AM +0100, LABBE Corentin wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 02:54:28PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > >> > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.20-stable tree. > >> > > >> > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at > >> > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. > >> > > >> > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to > >> > and let me know why this patch should be > >> > applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be > >> > seen again. > >> > > >> > thanks, > >> > > >> > greg k-h > >> > > >> > >> Hello > >> > >> Without this patch, we cannot boot a defconfig on ARC, and this is > >> critical for testing ARC devices in kernelCI. > > > > But this means you have never been able to boot a defconfig on ARC, > > right? So this is a new "feature" you are adding :) > > Correct, we've never been able to boot an *upstream* defconfig in > kernelCI for ARC. > > > If you wait one more week, all is good, you can do this for 5.0, and > > when I drop 4.20 in another few weeks, all is fine. > > > >> Why this patch is not a real stable patch, it is a strong requirement > >> for testing all future stable release on kernelCI. > > > > Only for 4.20. > > > > And normally kernelci uses a specific configuration for the board it is > > testing, not defconfig. Or am I mistaken? > > We only boot upstream defconfigs, hence the backport request I guess. > > Without it, we'll survive. It just means we can only boot v5.1+ on ARC > in kernelCI. 5.0+ in kernelCI, this was for a stable patch in 4.20 only, it's already in Linus's tree for 5.0 :) thanks, greg k-h