Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: gpmi: Set WAIT_FOR_READY timeout based on program/erase times - Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>
Cc: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	"Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	"Tomasz Moń" <tomasz.mon@camlingroup.com>,
	"Richard Weinberger" <richard@nod.at>,
	linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Sasha Levin" <sashal@kernel.org>,
	torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Han Xu" <han.xu@nxp.com>, kernel <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	"k drobinski" <k.drobinski@camlintechnologies.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: gpmi: Set WAIT_FOR_READY timeout based on program/erase times
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:50:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y1kQ2/u1YLSGEmLK@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+vNU2R=FVSpRVWh8RBJ7XZmRRjkqHce1WTGXDKrjeHRbuzSw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 03:02:27PM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:01 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > tharvey@gateworks.com wrote on Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:55:15 -0700:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 12:03 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey folks,
> > > >
> > > > richard@nod.at wrote on Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:59:10 +0200 (CEST):
> > > >
> > > > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > > > > >> My IRC history doesn't go back far enough, but if I recall correctly
> > > > > >> Miquel is on vacation, he would have picked up this patch for linux-next
> > > > > >> otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, I was off for an extended period of time, I'm (very) slowly
> > > > catching up now.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, let me do a round of stable releases so that people don't get hit by
> > > > > > this now...
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks a lot for doing so.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hopefully this gets fixed up by 5.19-final.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, I'll pickup this patch.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Greg & Richard for the handling of this issue.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Miquèl
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > > As Tomasz stated previously 06781a5026350 was merged in v5.19-rc4 and
> > > then was picked up by several stable kernels. While this made it into
> > > the 5.15 and 5.18 stable branches it did not make it into the
> > > following which are thus the are currently broken:
> > > 5.10.y
> > > 5.17.y
> > >
> > > How do we get this patch applied to those stable branches as well to
> > > resolve this?
> >
> > It is likely that the original patch (targeting a mainline kernel) did
> > not apply to those branches. In this case you can adapt the fix to the
> > concerned kernels and send it to stable@ (following the Documentation
> > guidelines for backports).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Miquèl
> 
> Miquèl,
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. You are correct that this patch which resolves
> the regression does not apply directly to 5.4/5.10/5.17 stable trees.
> I'm looking over
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> and I'm not clear what I need to put in the commit to make it clear
> that it only applies to those specific trees. Do I simply adjust the
> 'Fixes' tag to address the commit from that specific stable branch and
> send one for each stable branch (thus each would have a different sha
> in the Fixes tag) while also adding the 'commit <sha> upstream' to the
> top?

Please send multiple patches and say below the --- line which stable
tree it should be applied to.

Note that 5.17 is long end-of-life, always check the front page of
kernel.org for the active kernel versions.

thanks,

greg k-h

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/