From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933238AbcLNVOV (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:14:21 -0500 Received: from b.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.144]:44724 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756800AbcLNVOH (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:14:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/46] mtdpart: Propagate _get/put_device() To: Brian Norris , Karl Beldan References: <984fd8eb53b742bd46e7b42605ae4e0ceaf5ba08.1474450295.git.dwalter@sigma-star.at> <20160921121531.7786ee9b@bbrezillon> <20160928201611.GB142302@google.com> <20161214210935.GA135941@google.com> Cc: Boris Brezillon , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , David Woodhouse , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Daniel Walter , Stable From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:12:42 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161214210935.GA135941@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! On 14.12.2016 22:09, Brian Norris wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:24:46PM +0000, Karl Beldan wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Brian Norris >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:15:31PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:43:56 +0200 >>>> Daniel Walter wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Richard Weinberger >>>>> >>>>> If the master device has callbacks for _get/put_device() >>>>> and this MTD has slaves a get_mtd_device() call on paritions >>>>> will never issue the registered callbacks. >>>>> Fix this by propagating _get/put_device() down. >>>> >>>> Brian, can we have this one queued for 4.9? I can't take it in my tree >>>> if you want, but it's probably better if it's in the mtd tree. >>> >>> Applied this patch to l2-mtd.git >>> >> >> I think this should also go into -stable. > > Why? Do you have real use cases that are broken by this? I understand > this is a problem, but I'm curious on how this satisfies the stable > rules. > > Also, note that this isn't a regression; it's been broken forever and > apparently no one noticed. IMO that raises the bar a bit (but not > impossibly so) for -stable. Yes. AFAICT you can only trigger it using my "new" nandsim which is not mainline so far. Thanks, //richard