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 28B167317E; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:52:33 +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=1713185553; cv=none; b=RZXY6tBoI3sbzmKoJR9bswZF/XxIU1LYaTSgQktmSOv1FaiehACQsFXbwLfMr5xRNSn4GCg17VbLHfSmNv8Gx5LV9I677OgwZRzgdBfPNv8KK8/f5E8KbvuA7PDncJjpZi8yTEtJ2Sxknt4CQuTVCgKQNhr7aaPzGt7dobdvd2E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713185553; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j6fv941MMBXFiSEv5/RaPglaGYGM5st5RNviikpwY04=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=S5N4gwtjtNEvcjB9bgyAQ753J6K7EHaQKNSENznpR3/cAD99LXlyutx1fVqHb43GWTigZibRm4cuYTaGytWe18dD+kda/VUNoB0aJ9T1Dn7bDanBSLnWSq6eHQikfovWmdSvB5fBpJCTaMFYo82RS9Za1Hdab1Ut4bnCDq4mKCY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=tjMfTDs8; 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="tjMfTDs8" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92F2BC113CC; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:52:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1713185553; bh=j6fv941MMBXFiSEv5/RaPglaGYGM5st5RNviikpwY04=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=tjMfTDs8vFnWv1N+QzeEfQm0ERt9FcQXPQGL9aFe9lmKRoQ2DhC334lslhdvvqyn3 xe3EI5V3CecVDB1QQ0sHWJo/t6NfzkMAGxqemRI6BNCA06Bl1+ZNKyS8PC+gek+bad M+Pe7XUrLS/f0a8dZFmZmUJeb9x2wMIDSc5CPORo= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:52:30 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Heiko Carstens Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, stable-commits@vger.kernel.org, gbayer@linux.ibm.com, Alexandra Winter , Thorsten Winkler , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , Christian Borntraeger , Sven Schnelle Subject: Re: Patch "Revert "s390/ism: fix receive message buffer allocation"" has been added to the 6.8-stable tree Message-ID: <2024041506-outer-encounter-e37b@gregkh> References: <20240415085924.3035257-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20240415124216.7816-B-hca@linux.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@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: <20240415124216.7816-B-hca@linux.ibm.com> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 02:42:16PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:59:24AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > > > > Revert "s390/ism: fix receive message buffer allocation" > > > > to the 6.8-stable tree which can be found at: > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary > > > > The filename of the patch is: > > revert-s390-ism-fix-receive-message-buffer-allocatio.patch > > and it can be found in the queue-6.8 subdirectory. > > > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, > > please let know about it. > > > > > > > > commit 8568beeed3944bd4bf4c3683993a9df6ae53fbb7 > > Author: Gerd Bayer > > Date: Tue Apr 9 13:37:53 2024 +0200 > > > > Revert "s390/ism: fix receive message buffer allocation" > > > > [ Upstream commit d51dc8dd6ab6f93a894ff8b38d3b8d02c98eb9fb ] > > > > This reverts commit 58effa3476536215530c9ec4910ffc981613b413. > > Review was not finished on this patch. So it's not ready for > > upstreaming. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gerd Bayer > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240409113753.2181368-1-gbayer@linux.ibm.com > > Fixes: 58effa347653 ("s390/ism: fix receive message buffer allocation") > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > > I'm not sure if it makes sense to add and revert a patch within a > single stable queue (the same applies to 6.6). It might make sense to > drop both patches. It makes it easier for us to track that this was applied, otherwise our scripts get confused and keeps trying to add it back :) thanks, greg k-h