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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 221D6C43381 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:11:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70BC21848 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:11:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="ipDlhxLZ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728906AbfBYXLK (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:11:10 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-f195.google.com ([209.85.215.195]:43025 "EHLO mail-pg1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728848AbfBYXLK (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:11:10 -0500 Received: by mail-pg1-f195.google.com with SMTP id l11so5186836pgq.10 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:11:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=JKVNvcBxSAVyTrUsO7LrVoGkhXXJElldgEKPdUHJV34=; b=ipDlhxLZuu74DUrcl18b1BDQeCqLXTr9vqyVebmuNVzq1Gnb+KmzsDTaeRUKSvBYnS HSE+HSCOaBytXleASUm0csKsCM0V2CZXoTDLBajW5yHy7nm04SFGQWhxYDzh92tSdCAD Ci8jdz8xX5jFpI6bY7aCUAeii0tF4ZD/NPgRwA3Yt2uXTPc5qXWMxAh6C0eR4jKUGG6W rfoJmZX48bNuR+4s6m6POo+pVrOaW4Z0EU+dMdEaJRrT3ueXe0fx0mBEGYbP/75VuTTy CNlPxPHVw1S2ayv2GPoqX1nBX5yZEMzbEmRBQj1Mougi+utq34qMwYeSNiRpcS3dgOSd 4GAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=JKVNvcBxSAVyTrUsO7LrVoGkhXXJElldgEKPdUHJV34=; b=mJVDRY2qB0SavvZIftARFbsoyT3uP8jmM1GaMt2BXsTed1V31lVk/agI6JRTRNvD5H lXk+NUytdu4VSzADXvDCiOfN03evE7Qktll08Hd1M4FlXPpXro+DgBn2UfRdT8kUQ8EQ LGrMTo71YiUyhd4Lc1/GeJ0LSvZvy2gcFNVXjUc2BwFa+6NSA2Bnn0N1SOFwUQmBShuY RS6wMufzutOlgiL2tvquMBwStv1lMaYgSPkK2/mzHFYQ13eqBBn3/PWIYbqmZuEsIAWV 1HgB7zAsV6LWgv2WvTsYKAtHzkKg/V8Ic9eLhmM2l7bhaw5Bqwn6uk0vfxXikXEFIlOY JqxA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubvWkzl7m7GSbE6fAVG6EHEJQ5FpPyfnsvJeI7A9oBncwZc7UUz PbLXN/swbYZE3emnPTkHfTRApg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Iavcu7kCdBVltY9YR5oQIb2LnpOvAjsHI22DG3crI8n/z7cJUQ4EKIYODQMhOwwaavsCgSGDg== X-Received: by 2002:a65:6294:: with SMTP id f20mr21127744pgv.174.1551136269227; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2601:602:9200:a1a5:d162:f3fc:2fbf:b687]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id k125sm462874pgc.51.2019.02.25.15.11.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:11:08 -0800 (PST) From: Kevin Hilman To: Greg KH , LABBE Corentin Cc: 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? In-Reply-To: <20190225135400.GA27690@kroah.com> References: <155101646812133@kroah.com> <20190225094347.GA3831@Red> <20190225135400.GA27690@kroah.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:11:07 -0800 Message-ID: <7h36ob31mc.fsf@baylibre.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org 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. Kevin