On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 9/2/25 7:42 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 02:15:24PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Commit 31272abd5974b38ba312e9cf2ec2f09f9dd7dcba upstream. Commit f3f9deccfc68a6b7c8c1cc51e902edba23d309d4 LTS
How about you just backport both of these independently, as this change now looks nothing like either of those commits :(
The trouble is that the first one was already backported by c334ae4a545a1b1ae8aff4e5eb741af2c7624cc7 and it missed a few things. Some, but not all, of these issues were corrected by the LTS patch (the second commit above).
I couldn't figure out how to separate this into two patches so I merged them into one.
I suppose I could provide an incomplete "fix" for c334ae4a545a1b1ae8aff4e5eb741af2c7624cc7 as a separate patch (but the code will still be broken) and then do the LTS backport.
Yes please. When ever possible try to stick to what is upstream, and that includes backporting partial patches if needed, as then they can actually be tracked.
thanks,
greg k-h