From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Matt Carlson" Subject: Re: [stable] [PATCH net-2.6/stable] tg3: Restrict phy ioctl access Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:39:47 -0800 Message-ID: <20110217003947.GA11185@mcarlson.broadcom.com> References: <20110216230613.GA11053@mcarlson.broadcom.com> <20110216.151103.189711682.davem@davemloft.net> <20110216235248.GA11108@mcarlson.broadcom.com> <20110216.161025.59672084.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Matthew Carlson" , "greg@kroah.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@kernel.org" To: "David Miller" Return-path: Received: from mms2.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.18]:4964 "EHLO mms2.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754775Ab1BQAj5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:39:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110216.161025.59672084.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:10:25PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: "Matt Carlson" > Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:52:48 -0800 > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:11:03PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > >> From: "Matt Carlson" > >> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:06:13 -0800 > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:39:35PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 02:51:10PM -0800, Matt Carlson wrote: > >> >> > If management firmware is present and the device is down, the firmware > >> >> > will assume control of the phy. If a phy access were allowed from the > >> >> > host, it will collide with firmware phy accesses, resulting in > >> >> > unpredictable behavior. This patch fixes the problem by disallowing phy > >> >> > accesses during the problematic condition. > >> >> > > >> >> > Upstream commit ID f746a3136a61ae535c5d0b49a9418fa21edc61b5 > >> >> > >> >> There is no such upstream git commit id in Linus's tree. What am I > >> >> doing wrong here? > >> > > >> > The commit is in Dave Miller's net-next-2.6 tree. > >> > > >> > >> If it wasn't appropriate for net-2.6, it absolutely it not appropriate > >> for -stable. > > > > net-2.6 was the target tree for the patch. The stable_kernel_rules.txt > > seemed to suggest that I could just CC stable@kernel.org with the > > commit ID, and Greg would pull it in as the process dictates. If that > > isn't correct, what is the preferred way to expedite the integration of > > a patch? > > You are posting a commit ID for the net-next-2.6 tree, that's what triggered > my response. > > Unless it also went into the net-2.6 tree (in which case you should > give Greg the net-2.6 commit ID, which is also what the commit ID must > be in Linus's tree right now), the change is not appropriate for > -stable submission. So the proper thing to do here is recall the patch, submit a new patch to net-2.6 with a CC: stabel@kernel.org in the signed-off-by section. Would I do the exact same thing if I were posting to net-next-2.6? (i.e. the CC line tells you I want this patch to go to net-next-2.6, net-2.6, then Linus's tree, then stable?) Or would you rather I posted a completely different patchset against net-2.6?