WTF: patch "[PATCH] parisc: Whitespace cleanups in atomic.h" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 5.8-stable tree?

WTF: patch "[PATCH] parisc: Whitespace cleanups in atomic.h" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 5.8-stable tree?

[gregkh]

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 5.8-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 
<stable@vger.kernel.org> 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

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 3bc6e3dc5a54d5842938c6f1ed78dd1add379af7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 10:50:42 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] parisc: Whitespace cleanups in atomic.h

Fix whitespace indenting and drop trailing backslashes.

Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.19+
Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>

diff --git a/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h
index 6dd4171c9530..90e8267fc509 100644
--- a/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h
+++ b/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h
@@ -34,13 +34,13 @@ extern arch_spinlock_t __atomic_hash[ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE] __lock_aligned;
 /* Can't use raw_spin_lock_irq because of #include problems, so
  * this is the substitute */
 #define _atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(l,f) do {	\
-	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);		\
+	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);	\
 	local_irq_save(f);			\
 	arch_spin_lock(s);			\
 } while(0)
 
 #define _atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(l,f) do {	\
-	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);			\
+	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);		\
 	arch_spin_unlock(s);				\
 	local_irq_restore(f);				\
 } while(0)
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static __inline__ void atomic_##op(int i, atomic_t *v)			\
 	_atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(v, flags);				\
 	v->counter c_op i;						\
 	_atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(v, flags);			\
-}									\
+}
 
 #define ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op, c_op)					\
 static __inline__ int atomic_##op##_return(int i, atomic_t *v)		\
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static __inline__ void atomic64_##op(s64 i, atomic64_t *v)		\
 	_atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(v, flags);				\
 	v->counter c_op i;						\
 	_atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(v, flags);			\
-}									\
+}
 
 #define ATOMIC64_OP_RETURN(op, c_op)					\
 static __inline__ s64 atomic64_##op##_return(s64 i, atomic64_t *v)	\

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] parisc: Whitespace cleanups in atomic.h" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 5.8-stable tree?

[Helge Deller]

Hi Greg,

On 17.08.20 14:41, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 5.8-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
> <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
> applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> seen again.

I tagged it for stable series, because often when successing patches
come in, I sometimes need to trigger a backport of such small prior cleanup patches.
But your are right, for now it's ok to drop it.

Thank you!
Helge

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
>
> From 3bc6e3dc5a54d5842938c6f1ed78dd1add379af7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 10:50:42 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] parisc: Whitespace cleanups in atomic.h
>
> Fix whitespace indenting and drop trailing backslashes.
>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.19+
> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
>
> diff --git a/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h
> index 6dd4171c9530..90e8267fc509 100644
> --- a/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h
> +++ b/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h
> @@ -34,13 +34,13 @@ extern arch_spinlock_t __atomic_hash[ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE] __lock_aligned;
>  /* Can't use raw_spin_lock_irq because of #include problems, so
>   * this is the substitute */
>  #define _atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(l,f) do {	\
> -	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);		\
> +	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);	\
>  	local_irq_save(f);			\
>  	arch_spin_lock(s);			\
>  } while(0)
>
>  #define _atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(l,f) do {	\
> -	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);			\
> +	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);		\
>  	arch_spin_unlock(s);				\
>  	local_irq_restore(f);				\
>  } while(0)
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static __inline__ void atomic_##op(int i, atomic_t *v)			\
>  	_atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(v, flags);				\
>  	v->counter c_op i;						\
>  	_atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(v, flags);			\
> -}									\
> +}
>
>  #define ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op, c_op)					\
>  static __inline__ int atomic_##op##_return(int i, atomic_t *v)		\
> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static __inline__ void atomic64_##op(s64 i, atomic64_t *v)		\
>  	_atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(v, flags);				\
>  	v->counter c_op i;						\
>  	_atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(v, flags);			\
> -}									\
> +}
>
>  #define ATOMIC64_OP_RETURN(op, c_op)					\
>  static __inline__ s64 atomic64_##op##_return(s64 i, atomic64_t *v)	\
>