Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[David Lechner]

On 5/6/24 2:30 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> 
>     spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void
> 
> to the 6.1-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:
>      spi-axi-spi-engine-convert-to-platform-remove-callba.patch
> and it can be found in the queue-6.1 subdirectory.
> 
> If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
> 
> 


Does not meet the criteria for stable.

Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 454 bytes --]

Hello,

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 03:43:47PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> Does not meet the criteria for stable.

It was identified as a dependency of another patch. But I agree to
David, it should be trivial to back this patch out. If you need help,
please tell me.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[David Lechner]

On 5/7/24 1:13 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 03:43:47PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>> Does not meet the criteria for stable.
> 
> It was identified as a dependency of another patch. But I agree to
> David, it should be trivial to back this patch out. If you need help,
> please tell me.
> 

The "fix" patch isn't something that should be backported to stable
either, so we shouldn't need to do anything here other than drop
the whole series from the stable queue.

Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

Hello David,

On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> On 5/7/24 1:13 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 03:43:47PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> >> Does not meet the criteria for stable.
> > 
> > It was identified as a dependency of another patch. But I agree to
> > David, it should be trivial to back this patch out. If you need help,
> > please tell me.
> > 
> 
> The "fix" patch isn't something that should be backported to stable
> either, so we shouldn't need to do anything here other than drop
> the whole series from the stable queue.

Maybe it's just me, but for me backporting commit 0064db9ce4aa ("spi:
axi-spi-engine: fix version format string") looks sensible. (Or what do
you mean with "the \"fix\" patch"?) It's a small fix for a small
annoyance, but looks harmless enough that I'd tend to include it in
stable.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[David Lechner]

On 5/7/24 9:08 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello David,
> 
> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 08:59:16AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 1:13 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 03:43:47PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>>>> Does not meet the criteria for stable.
>>>
>>> It was identified as a dependency of another patch. But I agree to
>>> David, it should be trivial to back this patch out. If you need help,
>>> please tell me.
>>>
>>
>> The "fix" patch isn't something that should be backported to stable
>> either, so we shouldn't need to do anything here other than drop
>> the whole series from the stable queue.
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but for me backporting commit 0064db9ce4aa ("spi:
> axi-spi-engine: fix version format string") looks sensible. (Or what do
> you mean with "the \"fix\" patch"?) It's a small fix for a small
> annoyance, but looks harmless enough that I'd tend to include it in
> stable.
> 

It's just fixing a theoretical problem, not one that has actually
caused problems for people. The stable guidelines I read [1] said we
shouldn't include fixes like that.

[1]: https://docs.kernel.org/process/stable-kernel-rules.html


So, sure it would probably be harmless to include it without the
other dependencies. But not sure it is worth the effort for only
a theoretical problem.

Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]

On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 09:22:48AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:

> It's just fixing a theoretical problem, not one that has actually
> caused problems for people. The stable guidelines I read [1] said we
> shouldn't include fixes like that.

> [1]: https://docs.kernel.org/process/stable-kernel-rules.html

> So, sure it would probably be harmless to include it without the
> other dependencies. But not sure it is worth the effort for only
> a theoretical problem.

The written stable guidelines don't really reflect what's going on with
stable these days at all, these days it's very aggressive with what it
backports.  Personally I tend to be a lot more conservative than this
and would tend to agree that this isn't a great candidate for
backporting but people seem OK with this sort of stuff.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 11:39:58PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 09:22:48AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> 
> > It's just fixing a theoretical problem, not one that has actually
> > caused problems for people. The stable guidelines I read [1] said we
> > shouldn't include fixes like that.
> 
> > [1]: https://docs.kernel.org/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> 
> > So, sure it would probably be harmless to include it without the
> > other dependencies. But not sure it is worth the effort for only
> > a theoretical problem.
> 
> The written stable guidelines don't really reflect what's going on with
> stable these days at all, these days it's very aggressive with what it
> backports.

It's "aggressive" in that many dependent patches are finally being
properly found and backported as needed to be able to get the "real" fix
applied properly.  That's all, nothing odd here, and all of these
commits have been through proper review and development and acceptance
already, so it's not like they are brand new things, they are required
for real fixes.

> Personally I tend to be a lot more conservative than this
> and would tend to agree that this isn't a great candidate for
> backporting but people seem OK with this sort of stuff.

Again, we want to keep as close as possible with Linus's tree because
ALMOST EVERY time we try to do our own thing, we get something wrong.
Keeping in sync is essencial to rely on our overall testing and future
fix ability to keep in sync properly.

To attempt to do "one off" backports all over the place just does not
work, we have tried it and failed.  To not accept the fix at all leaves
us vulnerable to a known bug, why would that be ok?

Change is good, and these changes are extra-good as they fix things.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Patch "spi: axi-spi-engine: Convert to platform remove callback returning void" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[David Lechner]

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 8:07 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 11:39:58PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 09:22:48AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> >
> > > It's just fixing a theoretical problem, not one that has actually
> > > caused problems for people. The stable guidelines I read [1] said we
> > > shouldn't include fixes like that.
> >
> > > [1]: https://docs.kernel.org/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> >
> > > So, sure it would probably be harmless to include it without the
> > > other dependencies. But not sure it is worth the effort for only
> > > a theoretical problem.
> >
> > The written stable guidelines don't really reflect what's going on with
> > stable these days at all, these days it's very aggressive with what it
> > backports.
>
> It's "aggressive" in that many dependent patches are finally being
> properly found and backported as needed to be able to get the "real" fix
> applied properly.  That's all, nothing odd here, and all of these
> commits have been through proper review and development and acceptance
> already, so it's not like they are brand new things, they are required
> for real fixes.
>
> > Personally I tend to be a lot more conservative than this
> > and would tend to agree that this isn't a great candidate for
> > backporting but people seem OK with this sort of stuff.
>
> Again, we want to keep as close as possible with Linus's tree because
> ALMOST EVERY time we try to do our own thing, we get something wrong.
> Keeping in sync is essencial to rely on our overall testing and future
> fix ability to keep in sync properly.
>
> To attempt to do "one off" backports all over the place just does not
> work, we have tried it and failed.  To not accept the fix at all leaves
> us vulnerable to a known bug, why would that be ok?
>
> Change is good, and these changes are extra-good as they fix things.
>


I see there are differences in opinion of what a "real" problem is.
And it sounds like the opinions have been shifting while I was away
from kernel development for a few years.

If you prefer to take this patch and all of it's dependencies to keep
things as close to mainline as possible, I guess that is fine.