Re: Backport patch that wasn't dropped, but not applied in the actual stable release

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 10:14:26AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>On 7/21/26 20:51, Alex L. wrote:
>> Hello, I'm writing with regards to drm-amd-display-fix-ism-dc_lock-
>> deadlock-during-susp.patch that can be found in the stable-queue
>> repo, under releases/7.1.3/ on the master branch. (https://
>> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/
>> releases/7.1.3/drm-amd-display-fix-ism-dc_lock-deadlock-during-
>> susp.patch)
>>
>> Despite being under the releases directory to this date, this patch
>> wasn't actually applied in the 7.1.3 release upon inspection of the
>> stable tree. It also wasn't included in the release announcement for
>> 7.1.3 nor the diffstat within. It wasn't even included in the RC's
>> for 7.1.3. I have searched the stable mailing list and the stable-
>> queue repo's commit histories to establish whether the patch was
>> dropped later for some reason - to my knowledge, this doesn't appear
>> to be the case.
>>
>> On further investigation I found that the commit that first
>> introduced this patch to stable-queue's queue-7.1/ added the patch
>> file to the directory, but did not add it to the queue-7.1/series
>> file. (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-
>> queue.git/commit/?id=76522806dbfb58941f6fa4b6116b891b66689613)
>>
>> Could this be an accidental omission of the patch due to it not
>> being on the series file, or was there some other reason that the
>> patch was not included? As a user who's affected by the regression
>> that the patch addresses, I would very much appreciate it being
>> included in future 7.1.y releases.
>Greg, Sasha, from a quick look this analysis seems correct. Did some
>script do something odd? Or did Alex and I miss something:
>
>Reminder, it was Sasha that queued the patch for 7.1:
>https://lore.kernel.org/all/stable-reply-item001-amd-ism-71-20260628203053@kernel.org/
>
>Sashiko shortly afterwards (see thread) complained about two things, but
>those were pre-existing issues (without any fixes in mainline, at least
>I did not spon any references for it).

You're right - thanks for the report. I'll queue it up again.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha