On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59:45AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > Simon, > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:48:34PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:14:04AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > Simon, > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 03:50:04PM +0100, Simon Guinot wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > This patch series fixes a SATA disk hotplug issue for the Armada 370/XP > > > > SoCs: once a disk is removed from a SATA port, then the re-plug events > > > > are not detected by the sata_mv driver. > > > > > > > > This should be applied to the -stable kernels 3.10 and onwards. > > > > > > Please add a 'Fixes: <commit-hash> (oneline)' tag below the Cc: stable > > > tags. It looks like the sata_mv binding and the Armada 370 DT booting > > > were both introduced in v3.6, so I would probably use: > > > > > > Fixes: 9ae6f740b49f (arm: mach-mvebu: add support for Armada 370 and Armada XP with DT) > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > I am not comfortable with this "Fixes: commit_id" notation. It states > > that the patch fixes a regression introduced by a given commit. This > > hardly makes sense to me because obviously the hotplug issue has not > > been introduced by: > > > > "arm: mach-mvebu: add support for Armada 370 and Armada XP with DT". > > > > I know that the purpose is purely administrative, but it is kind of > > weird... > > True, the wording may not be the best, but the goal is to make it easier > to do a 'tag --contains' search. We could call it > > Repair-Something-Broken-Since-Introduced-by: > > in this case ;-) > > > > Is there a specific reason you say v3.10? > > > > I could have said nothing as well. > > > > As stable kernel older than 3.10 are no longer maintained, I think > > we don't need to point out a specific commit as a -stable target. > > Simply Cc'ing -stable without any extra informations should be good > > enough. > > The reason I ask is that I'd like to know if, in debugging this issue, > you discovered that the fix was not needed before v3.10 (hypothetically, > say because sata hotplug was added in v3.10). > > The linux-stable team isn't the only people who find this information > useful. Distros maintaining older kernels would find it very helpful > when going through -stable patches to know easily if a patch should be > backported further, say to v3.8. The patches may effectively apply against a 3.6 kernel but who is going to embed a such kernel on an Armada-based board ? IMO, stabilize the Armada support for kernels older than 3.10 is a waste of time, for you, for the -stable maintainers and for me. Some important features (for Armada SoCs) are missing on this kernels. Then I don't think that someone is going to use a kernel older than 3.10 with an Armada-based board. But anyway, it is not up to me and I have hopefully added all the needed -stable informations to the v3 patch series. Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
