From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:54:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
cc: Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@keymile.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Simon Guinot <sguinot@lacie.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3b 0/9] refactoring for mask_cache
In-Reply-To: <20130326204725.GA4521@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1303262153220.22263@ionos>
References: <1363885931-20571-1-git-send-email-gerlando.falauto@keymile.com> <20130321215709.GA27612@kroah.com> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1303262136350.22263@ionos> <20130326204725.GA4521@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Greg KH wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:37:53PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 06:12:02PM +0100, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> > > > This patchset addresses a regression found with the Orion GPIO controller
> > > > when both Edge- and Level- based interrupts are requested within the same
> > > > GPIO chip. The regression was introduced by e59347a
> > > > "arm: orion: Use generic irq chip"
> > > > 
> > > > thereby affecting all kernel releases since 3.0.x.
> > > 
> > > <formletter>
> > > 
> > > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
> > > stable kernel tree.  Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
> > > for how to do this properly.
> > > 
> > > </formletter>
> > 
> > Aside of that it would be less intrusive for the stable series to
> > revert the offending commit(s), if that is possible.
> 
> If it is reverted in Linus's tree, yes, I can do that.  But if so,
> please just tag that revert with the Cc: stable marking and then I can
> pick it up properly.
> 
> Otherwise, no, I can't revert something that isn't already fixed in
> upstream first.

I know. The proper thing would be:

patch 1/n   revert (cc'ed to stable)
patch 2-m/n fix infrastructure
patch n/n   redo the commit with the proper change

Though I don't know if it's possible.

Thanks,

	tglx