Hi Greg,
On 07/11/2022 10:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:59:24AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:23:26AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:20:03AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
commit 6746eae4bbaddcc16b40efb33dab79210828b3ce upstream.
Isn't this commit 665c157e0204176023860b51a46528ba0ba62c33 instead?
This was reverted in commit d76308f03ee1 and pushed in later with fixups as 6746eae4bbadd.
So which should be applied?
Sorry, this particular post is a backport for v5.10 stable branch.
confused,
Now I am too. What is expected here ? My understanding is, we should stick the "upstream" commit that is getting backported at the beginning of the commit description. In that sense, the commit id in this patch looks correct to me. Please let me know if this is not the case.
As such, this is only for 5.10.x branch. The rest are taken care of.
Please let us know if we are something missing.
We already have commit 665c157e0204176023860b51a46528ba0ba62c33 queued up in the 5.10 stable queue. Is that not correct? It has the same
We pushed the fix as part of the coresight fixes for 6.1 [0], as
commit: 6746eae4bbad "coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()"
But, the version in there, produced a build warning with "unused variable" (with CONFIG_WERROR) [1] and thus was reverted in [2],
commit: d76308f03ee1: Revert "coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()"
Later, we sent you the corrected fix separately [3], which was queued as commit "6746eae4bbadd".
6746eae4bbad coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()
So, in effect, here is what we have in the tree :
$ git log --oneline | grep "cti: Fix" 6746eae4bbad coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw() d76308f03ee1 Revert "coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()" 665c157e0204 coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()
subject line as this one.
I understand the "same" subject line has caused this confusion. Will modify it in the future avoid this confusion.
So, kindly drop "665c157e0204" from the queue for 5.10, it would fail to apply there anyway so does the correct "6746eae4bbad". This backport is appropriate for 5.10 branch, with the correct version.
I have double checked the versions pulled into 6.0.x [4] and 5.15.x [5] branches and they all have the correct one (6746eae4bbad) applied.
[0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/16664341837810@kroah.com [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221024135752.2b83af97@canb.auug.org.au [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/166659326494120@kroah.com [3] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1666717705115206@kroah.com [4] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/166719866563237@kroah.com [5] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/16671983698786@kroah.com
Hope this helps.
Suzuki
Still confused.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
Suzuki K Poulose