Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: RFC: backport of commit a32c1c61212d | From | Florian Fainelli <> | Date | Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:36:36 -0700 |
| |
On 9/1/2020 9:06 AM, Doug Berger wrote: > On 9/1/2020 7:00 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
[snip]
> Sorry for the confusion, but thanks for the reply. > > There is functionality that exists in Linus' tree, but it is not the > result of a single commit that can be easily backported. I have been > unable to find anything in the documentation for submitting a patch to a > stable branch that covers this type of submission so I have sent this as > an RFC about process rather than a patch. > > The upstream commit that ultimately results in the functional change is: > commit a32c1c61212d ("arm: simplify detection of memory zone boundaries") > > That commit is dependent on other commits that aren't necessary for the > stable branches. > > In my downstream kernel I would apply the single line patch included in > my original email, but it is not appropriate to apply that patch to > Linus' tree since the problem does not exist there. > > This creates the situation where a simple patch could be applied to a > stable branch to improve its stability, but there is not a clear > upstream commit to reference. > > My best guess at this point is to submit patches to the affected stable > branches like the one in my RFC and reference a32c1c61212d as the > upstream commit. This would be confusing to anyone that tried to compare > the submitted patch with the upstream patch since they > wouldn't look at all alike, but the fixes and upstream tags would define > the affected range in Linus' tree. > > I would appreciate any guidance on how best to handle this kind of > situation.
You could submit various patches with [PATCH stable x.y] in the subject to indicate they are targeting a specific stable branch, copy stable@vger.kernel.org as well as all recipients in this email and see if that works.
Not sure if there is a more documented process than that. -- Florian
| |