WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[gregkh]

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to 
<stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
seen again.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

>From b1448ea9cd95868e3e91313b643818d18917b382 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:30:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA

If NO_DMA=y:

    ERROR: "bad_dma_ops" [drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.ko] undefined!

Add a dependency on HAS_DMA to fix this.

Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>

diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig b/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig
index 38bc319904c4..9c8b558ba19e 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig
@@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ config TI_ADS8688
 
 config TI_AM335X_ADC
 	tristate "TI's AM335X ADC driver"
-	depends on MFD_TI_AM335X_TSCADC
+	depends on MFD_TI_AM335X_TSCADC && HAS_DMA
 	select IIO_BUFFER
 	select IIO_KFIFO_BUF
 	help

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM,  <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree.
>
> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.

s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g

Time to update the scripts? ;-)

> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to
> <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
> applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> seen again.

I don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error.

> ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
>
> From b1448ea9cd95868e3e91313b643818d18917b382 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 13:30:24 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA
>
> If NO_DMA=y:
>
>     ERROR: "bad_dma_ops" [drivers/iio/adc/ti_am335x_adc.ko] undefined!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:03:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM,  <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree.
> >
> > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
> 
> s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g
> 
> Time to update the scripts? ;-)

Ah, yes, thanks, will go do that now.

> > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to
> > <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
> > applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> > seen again.
> 
> I don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error.

It does on 4.9?  Not according to the patch itself:

    Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support")

$ git describe --contains f438b9da
v4.10-rc1~148^2~367^2~6^2

So why should this be applied to 4.9?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:03:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM,  <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree.
>> >
>> > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
>> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
>>
>> s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g
>>
>> Time to update the scripts? ;-)
>
> Ah, yes, thanks, will go do that now.
>
>> > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to
>> > <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
>> > applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
>> > seen again.
>>
>> I don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error.
>
> It does on 4.9?  Not according to the patch itself:
>
>     Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support")
>
> $ git describe --contains f438b9da
> v4.10-rc1~148^2~367^2~6^2
>
> So why should this be applied to 4.9?

Right (disclaimer: I didn't add a fixes tag), you confused me with the stable
kernel rules question.

So not on v4.9, until someone tries to sneak f438b9da into LTSI ;-)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] iio: adc: TI_AM335X_ADC should depend on HAS_DMA" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 09/01/17 09:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:03:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM,  <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
>>>> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
>>>
>>> s@stable_kernel_rules.txt@process/stable-kernel-rules.rst@g
>>>
>>> Time to update the scripts? ;-)
>>
>> Ah, yes, thanks, will go do that now.
>>
>>>> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to
>>>> <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
>>>> applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
>>>> seen again.
>>>
>>> I don't mind if you drop it, but it does fix a (obscure) build error.
>>
>> It does on 4.9?  Not according to the patch itself:
>>
>>     Fixes: f438b9da (" drivers: iio: ti_am335x_adc: add dma support")
>>
>> $ git describe --contains f438b9da
>> v4.10-rc1~148^2~367^2~6^2
>>
>> So why should this be applied to 4.9?
> 
> Right (disclaimer: I didn't add a fixes tag), you confused me with the stable
> kernel rules question.
Sorry, my bad. I'd lost track of when the change went in and thought for
some reason it was longer ago than that and lazily didn't check.
> 
> So not on v4.9, until someone tries to sneak f438b9da into LTSI ;-)
> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
> 
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds
>