Hi Michal, [...] > > Does it make sense for this change to be back-ported to stable and > > long-term kernels? > > > > I am asking to make sure we do the right thing here, as I can imagine > > that older kernels (primarily because some folks could use, for example, > > Ubuntu LTS releases for development) might often be used by people who > > work with the Xilinx FPGAs and such. > > I think that make sense to do so. I haven't had a time to take look at > it closely but I think on Xilinx ZynqMP zcu102 board this missing patch > is causing hang when standard debian 5.10 is used. OK. This definitely would be a good candidate for back-port then - it might help quite a few folks to get their device going without this troublesome hang you mentioned. There are a few options as per: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html You can send v3 adding the appropriate tag (see above link or the comment below) or once this series (or mainly this patch) reaches Linus' tree, then send a message to the stable maintainers mailing list to let them know what any why to back-port. At this point, I believe that adding the "Cc:" tag which includes the "stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" might be the best option as it would involve the least amount of work to for Sasha et al. What do you think? Which option would you like to go for? Krzysztof
