Hi, On 6/23/21 4:19 PM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: > 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? I have sent v3 with above changes. Thanks, Michal
