From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Request to backport "Documentation: Document arm64 kpti control"
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 19:33:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5457028c-6eaf-86e3-ed87-cebe30a39d1e@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200129191630.GB2896@sasha-vm>
On 1/29/2020 11:16 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 04:51:06PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 08:52:33AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 08:03:25PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> > Hi Greg, Sasha,
>>> >
>>> > Could you backport upstream commit
>>> > de19055564c8f8f9d366f8db3395836da0b2176c ("Documentation: Document
>>> arm64
>>> > kpti control") to the stable 4.9, 4.14 and 4.19 kernels since they all
>>> > support the command line parameter.
>>>
>>> Hey Florian,
>>>
>>> We don't normally take documentation patches into stable trees.
>>
>> Normally we do not, but this is simple enough I've queued it up for 4.19
>> and 4.14. Are you sure it is ok for 4.9? If so, Florian, can you
>> provide a backported version of it?
>
> My objection to taking documentation patches is either that we take all
> of them, or we take none. If we take only select documentation fixes it
> makes a frankenstein Documentation/ directory that might cause more harm
> than benefit.
>
> Let's say I'm looking for netfilter documentation on 4.19, can I trust
> linux-4.19.y or do I look upstream? Right now I know I have to look
> upstream, but if we tell people it's okay to trust the linux-4.19.y docs
> then we might be causing harm to our users when some fixes were
> backported but corresponding documentation fixes weren't.
For a high profile feature/parameter such as kpti it seems to me that
making sure that the documentation reflects what the code supports is a
good way to limit the amount of support requests. For other options, I
would agree with you that back porting them probably makes little sense.
--
Florian
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-31 3:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-26 4:03 Request to backport "Documentation: Document arm64 kpti control" Florian Fainelli
2020-01-26 13:52 ` Sasha Levin
2020-01-27 15:51 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-01-27 18:47 ` Florian Fainelli
2020-01-29 19:16 ` Sasha Levin
2020-01-31 3:33 ` Florian Fainelli [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5457028c-6eaf-86e3-ed87-cebe30a39d1e@gmail.com \
--to=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox