Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 072/185] ALSA: hda: Add codec on bus address table lately

Sasha Levin
2019-09-23T16:42:17Z

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:40:45PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:30:25 +0200,
>Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 09:06:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> >On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 20:47:30 +0200,
>> >Sasha Levin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
>> >>
>> >> [ Upstream commit ee5f85d9290fe25d460bd320b7fe073075d72d33 ]
>> >>
>> >> The call of snd_hdac_bus_add_device() is needed only for registering
>> >> the codec onto the bus caddr_tbl[] that is referred essentially only
>> >> in the unsol event handler. That is, the reason of this call and the
>> >> release by the counter-part function snd_hdac_bus_remove_device() is
>> >> just to assure that the unsol event gets notified to the codec.
>> >>
>> >> But the current implementation of the unsol notification wouldn't work
>> >> properly when the codec is still in a premature init state. So this
>> >> patch tries to work around it by delaying the caddr_tbl[] registration
>> >> at the point of snd_hdac_device_register().
>> >>
>> >> Also, the order of snd_hdac_bus_remove_device() and device_del() calls
>> >> are shuffled to make sure that the unsol event is masked before
>> >> deleting the device.
>> >>
>> >> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204565
>> >> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>> >
>> >The upstream commit was reverted later by 246bb4aaa4f4, which has even
>> >Fixes tag pointing this. So please drop this.
>>
>> I'll drop it, thank you.
>>
>> >BTW, this is the second time AUTOSEL overlooked the existing revert.
>> >I'm afraid something is missing in the check.
>>
>> Usually it's the case that I check for fixes/reverts once I compile the
>> series, and again right before I queue it up to a stable tree. In
>> between fixes and reverts tend to sneak in just like in this case.
>>
>> In general, I also check the -rcs for fixes and reverts during their
>> review window, so while sometimes we send out mails with patches that
>> have a fix or revert upstream, they rarely make it into a released
>> stable kernel.
>
>IMO, it'd be great if you have some check before sending for reviews.
>The Fixes tag chain can be parsed relatively easily, after all.

True. I'll update my scripts to do that.

--
Thanks,
Sasha