WTF: patch "[PATCH] MIPS: pci: Remove KERN_WARN instance inside the mt7620 driver" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

WTF: patch "[PATCH] MIPS: pci: Remove KERN_WARN instance inside the mt7620 driver" 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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

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 8593b18ad348733b5d5ddfa0c79dcabf51dff308 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:29:43 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] MIPS: pci: Remove KERN_WARN instance inside the mt7620 driver

Switch the printk() call to the prefered pr_warn() api.

Fixes: 7e5873d3755c ("MIPS: pci: Add MT7620a PCIE driver")
Signed-off-by: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.5+
Patchwork: https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/15321/
Signed-off-by: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>

diff --git a/arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c b/arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c
index 22e4c22e750b..1a0b80a1cc4a 100644
--- a/arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c
+++ b/arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int wait_pciephy_busy(void)
 		else
 			break;
 		if (retry++ > WAITRETRY_MAX) {
-			printk(KERN_WARN "PCIE-PHY retry failed.\n");
+			pr_warn("PCIE-PHY retry failed.\n");
 			return -1;
 		}
 	}

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] MIPS: pci: Remove KERN_WARN instance inside the mt7620 driver" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[James Hogan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1869 bytes --]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:35:46PM +0100, 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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
> 
> 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 should have adjusted the commit message. KERN_WARN doesn't exist so it
actually fixes a build error as well as switching to pr_warn().

Cheers
James

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
> ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
> 
> From 8593b18ad348733b5d5ddfa0c79dcabf51dff308 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:29:43 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] MIPS: pci: Remove KERN_WARN instance inside the mt7620 driver
> 
> Switch the printk() call to the prefered pr_warn() api.
> 
> Fixes: 7e5873d3755c ("MIPS: pci: Add MT7620a PCIE driver")
> Signed-off-by: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
> Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
> Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.5+
> Patchwork: https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/15321/
> Signed-off-by: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c b/arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c
> index 22e4c22e750b..1a0b80a1cc4a 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int wait_pciephy_busy(void)
>  		else
>  			break;
>  		if (retry++ > WAITRETRY_MAX) {
> -			printk(KERN_WARN "PCIE-PHY retry failed.\n");
> +			pr_warn("PCIE-PHY retry failed.\n");
>  			return -1;
>  		}
>  	}
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] MIPS: pci: Remove KERN_WARN instance inside the mt7620 driver" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40:36PM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:35:46PM +0100, 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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
> > 
> > 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 should have adjusted the commit message. KERN_WARN doesn't exist so it
> actually fixes a build error as well as switching to pr_warn().

What build error?  I have not heard of this breaking the build on 4.9
for the past year, is it in some config that no one uses?  :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] MIPS: pci: Remove KERN_WARN instance inside the mt7620 driver" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[James Hogan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2685 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:56:49PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40:36PM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:35:46PM +0100, 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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
> > > 
> > > 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 should have adjusted the commit message. KERN_WARN doesn't exist so it
> > actually fixes a build error as well as switching to pr_warn().
> 
> What build error?  I have not heard of this breaking the build on 4.9
> for the past year, is it in some config that no one uses?  :)

The LEDE project has been carrying the patch [1] since February when
they added 4.9 support (their 4.4 support had a slightly earlier version
of the driver added with just a plain printk, no KERN_WARN).

They have both CONFIG_SOC_MT7620 and CONFIG_PCI=y in their ralink mt7620
config [2], and they are keeping up to date with stable releases [3], so
I have no doubt they would appreciate having the patch applied to
upstream stable to reduce their delta.

The only defconfigs in mainline which enable this platform
(CONFIG_SOC_MT7620) are omega2p_defconfig and vocore2_defconfig, which
were added in August by Harvey to help widen our internal continuous
build & boot test coverage. Neither defconfig enables CONFIG_PCI yet
which is required to see the build failure below, but regardless it is a
valid configuration which LEDE is actively using.

arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c: In function ‘wait_pciephy_busy’:
arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c:123:11: error: ‘KERN_WARN’ undeclared (first use in this function)
    printk(KERN_WARN "PCIE-PHY retry failed.\n");
           ^~~~~~~~~

John: I'm not familiar with the hardware, but would it be appropriate to
add CONFIG_PCI=y to either of those 2 defconfigs (omega2p_defconfig and
vocore2_defconfig) so this driver gets some upstream build[/boot]
testing?

Anyway, hopefully that helps allay stable backport concerns.

Thanks
James

[1] https://github.com/lede-project/source/blob/master/target/linux/ramips/patches-4.9/0099-pci-mt7620.patch
[2] https://github.com/lede-project/source/blob/master/target/linux/ramips/mt7620/config-4.9
[3] https://github.com/lede-project/source/commit/9fe59abef8bde3b7f32868873c4e1f76e9222d46

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] MIPS: pci: Remove KERN_WARN instance inside the mt7620 driver" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.9-stable tree?

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 02:13:00PM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:56:49PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40:36PM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> > > Hi Greg,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:35:46PM +0100, 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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
> > > > 
> > > > 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 should have adjusted the commit message. KERN_WARN doesn't exist so it
> > > actually fixes a build error as well as switching to pr_warn().
> > 
> > What build error?  I have not heard of this breaking the build on 4.9
> > for the past year, is it in some config that no one uses?  :)
> 
> The LEDE project has been carrying the patch [1] since February when
> they added 4.9 support (their 4.4 support had a slightly earlier version
> of the driver added with just a plain printk, no KERN_WARN).
> 
> They have both CONFIG_SOC_MT7620 and CONFIG_PCI=y in their ralink mt7620
> config [2], and they are keeping up to date with stable releases [3], so
> I have no doubt they would appreciate having the patch applied to
> upstream stable to reduce their delta.
> 
> The only defconfigs in mainline which enable this platform
> (CONFIG_SOC_MT7620) are omega2p_defconfig and vocore2_defconfig, which
> were added in August by Harvey to help widen our internal continuous
> build & boot test coverage. Neither defconfig enables CONFIG_PCI yet
> which is required to see the build failure below, but regardless it is a
> valid configuration which LEDE is actively using.
> 
> arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c: In function ‘wait_pciephy_busy’:
> arch/mips/pci/pci-mt7620.c:123:11: error: ‘KERN_WARN’ undeclared (first use in this function)
>     printk(KERN_WARN "PCIE-PHY retry failed.\n");
>            ^~~~~~~~~
> 
> John: I'm not familiar with the hardware, but would it be appropriate to
> add CONFIG_PCI=y to either of those 2 defconfigs (omega2p_defconfig and
> vocore2_defconfig) so this driver gets some upstream build[/boot]
> testing?
> 
> Anyway, hopefully that helps allay stable backport concerns.

Yes, thanks, that explains it a lot better, now queued up.

greg k-h