Re: [PATCH 0/1] coresight: Fix for v5.3-rc3

[Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 03:10, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 02:16:46PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 12:17, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 11:23:22AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > Good morning Greg,
> > > >
> > > > Here is a fix I'd like you to consider for this cycle.  Do you think you
> > > > could apply it to driver-core-next rather than char-misc-next?
> > >
> > > All of my -next branches are for 5.4-rc1, not 5.3 (i.e. the "next"
> > > kernel).
> > >
> > > So either one of them isn't going to matter to you for 5.3-final.
> > >
> > > > My current
> > > > coresight branch is based on driver-core-next to pick up Suzuki's
> > > > generic device lookup helpers patchset [1]. Applying it to char-misc-next
> > > > will create two different signature for the same patch, something that
> > > > gives Stephen a hard time when building the linux-next tree.
> > >
> > > Why would Suzuki's patch matter for 5.3-final?
> >
> > There was a similar situation during the 5.2 cycle [1].  Here too we
> > can fix a problem that is present in 5.3 rather than wait for 5.4.
> >
> > [1]. https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg736274.html
>
> But that has nothing to do with Suzuki's patch that is in my driver core
> tree.  I still fail to see the dependency here.

There is indeed no correlation between the fix and the patches in the
core tree.  When writing the original email I didn't know in what tree
you would end up applying the patch and feared we'd end up having the
same patch in two different tree.  Thanks to your explanation below
this won't happen.

>
> > > > I also think this patch should go in stable but haven't marked it as such since
> > > > it doesn't apply to any of the stable trees.  Once it is part of v5.3 I intend
> > > > to send a new version of the patch that does apply cleanly to those trees.  Let
> > > > me know if you want me to proceed differently.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mathieu
> > > >
> > > > [1]. https://www.spinics.net/lists/dri-devel/msg219674.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suzuki K Poulose (1):
> > > >   coresight: Fix DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON for uninitialized attribute
> > > >
> > > >  drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.c | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > Why would this patch depend on anything in any of my trees?
> >
> > I send you patches for inclusion in the next cycle and as such I
> > thought it should be the same for fixes in the current cycle.  If that
> > is not the case, should I send them directly to Linus?
>
> You can send me fixes to forward on to Linus for this current cycle, if
> they are not depending on patches that are only for the -next release.
>
> I always keep 2 branches in my git trees:
>         -linus : patches for Linus this release cycle
>         -next  : patches for Linus the next release cycle
>
> If you have bugfixes, make them against my -linus branch and send them
> on.  Odds are they don't have dependancies other than what is in Linus's
> tree, so that's fine.

Perfect, that's the link I was missing.

Thanks,
Mathieu

>
> If you have patches for the next cycle, send them against my -next
> branch.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel