From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A28814BFA2; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745327789; cv=none; b=DRNmUO9Ulo+7wHRNZvrT2LdVE1lsKb+EP6GsWP63gSHmfc46wyrDc5BUot5LLM3HS1wkOZ9tISBDFahHESTk4vrNmBglMsOG/TwVFx7ho3eQ4rYUa6ON5aFY9SlJ6Cw8SByh3FMkmaT37n/gTi7GEhx2EdBqXaOqPwKBHvy7RaU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745327789; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6tmGmklnwN8vx0n4rAj1N5XTQGSDE0iGYL1o4MkaNLA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=U+OGm97HqI4JeYOjzpZ/lxSa2V1EoM+M+iiKoACSatqE1+qznwBVM/rpbaAjepOPzZD438Zzo/yiTTVLZXHrfzYnSFqBHUU2qTn1L5eLCbXQf7zJpLImZzw3PXZ+oJtYcy3aqLuTzPodByZnJ5hd8nl0dTIPCMXAcozE+3WjYhA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=bIs5bTuJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="bIs5bTuJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 786EAC4CEEC; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:16:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1745327789; bh=6tmGmklnwN8vx0n4rAj1N5XTQGSDE0iGYL1o4MkaNLA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bIs5bTuJvCfBmMKpxZc5Tm7AdYWPFbFzUlulT0XmxotWEMOM0WZlwAB2jVTywkcE6 oz01+0jHJ4Zi7TwAU225as4iIeuOMdhPaROhk1ewBAgQNGHLy6R1a1Gx3Qumz7I/8m 7yQ1ZTtjaXx88GTEWOv7M8flVGNribf+XGC7oyk4= Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 15:16:21 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Ryo Takakura , alex@ghiti.fr, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, bigeasy@linutronix.de, conor.dooley@microchip.com, jirislaby@kernel.org, john.ogness@linutronix.de, palmer@dabbelt.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com, pmladek@suse.com, samuel.holland@sifive.com, u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: sifive: lock port in startup()/shutdown() callbacks Message-ID: <2025042252-geology-causation-a455@gregkh> References: <20250405043833.397020-1-ryotkkr98@gmail.com> <20250405044338.397237-1-ryotkkr98@gmail.com> <2025040553-video-declared-7d54@gregkh> <397723b7-9f04-4cb1-b718-2396ea9d1b91@suse.cz> <2025042202-compare-entrap-0089@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 03:07:54PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 4/22/25 12:50, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:20:42PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> > >> I admit it's surprising to see such a request as AFAIK it's normally done to > >> mix stable fixes and new features in the same series (especially when the > >> patches depend on each other), and ordering the fixes first and marking only > >> them as stable should be sufficient. We do that all the time in -mm. I > >> thought that stable works with stable marked commits primarily, not series? > > > > Yes, but when picking which "branch" to apply a series to, what would > > you do if you have some "fix some bugs, then add some new features" in a > > single patch series? The one to go to -final or the one for the next > > -rc1? > > As a maintainer I could split it myself. You must not have that many patches to review, remember, some of us get a few more than others ;) > > I see a lot of bugfixes delayed until -rc1 because of this issue, and > > it's really not a good idea at all. > > In my experience, most of the time these fixes are created because a dev: > > - works on the code to implement the feature part > - while working at the code, spots an existing bug > - the bug can be old (Fixes: commit a number of releases ago) > - wants to be helpful so isolates the fix separately as an early patch of > the series and marks stable because the bug can be serious enough in theory > - at the same time there are no known reports of the bug being hit in the wild > > In that case I don't see the urgency to fix it ASAP (unless it's e.g. > something obviously dangerously exploitable) so it might not be such a bad > idea just to put everything towards next rc1. Yes, but then look at the huge number of "bugfixes" that land in -rc1. Is that ok or not? I don't know... > This very thread seems to be a good example of the above. I see the later > version added a > Fixes: 45c054d0815b ("tty: serial: add driver for the SiFive UART") > which is a v5.2 commit. Agreed, but delaying a known-fix for weeks/months feels bad to me. thanks, greg k-h