On Mon 30-10-23 21:11:36, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the mtd tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >> drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >> 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >
> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
>
> Me neither. :-/
I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
M: Joern Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
L: linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
S: Maintained
F: drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!
> >> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> >>
> >> ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
> >
> > I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
> > vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
> > you send an update at -rc1?
>
> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
>
> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> is not suitable for stable either.
Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
