On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:48:22AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 01:00:59PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > >On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:36:07AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 03:23:13PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > >> >On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 03:13:09PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > >> >> >On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:04:44AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 02:58:31PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > >> >> >> >On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 08:53:09AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> Fixes: 6895ea55c385 ("usb: dwc3: qcom: Configure wakeup interrupts during suspend")
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >This commit doesn't exist in 5.19 (and earlier trees), shouldn't your
> > >> >> >> >scripts check for that?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> They do - it was backported to 5.19.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >What?! Why on earth would 6895ea55c385 ("usb: dwc3: qcom: Configure
> > >> >> >wakeup interrupts during suspend") be backported to stable?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Please drop that patch instead. It's essentially a new feature and is in
> > >> >> >any case in no way stable material.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Right, it was picked up as a dependency of a872ab303d5d ("usb: dwc3: qcom: fix use-after-free on runtime-PM wakeup")
> > >> >
> > >> >That's wrong too, it's not a dependency for that fix.
> > >>
> > >> Right, it may not strictly be one, but we're trying to bring in
> > >> dependencies as is without modifying the patch is it's far less error
> > >> prone, and keeps future backports easy, as long as backporting those
> > >> isn't riskier.
> > >
> > >It should only be some context that have changed. Backporting a known
> > >broken and non-trivial feature patch for that can't be right. It is
> > >certainly riskier.
> > >
> > >> In this case, if I were to drop a872ab303d5d I'd also need to drop:
> > >>
> > >> a872ab303d5d ("usb: dwc3: qcom: fix use-after-free on runtime-PM wakeup")
> > >> 6498a96c8c9c ("usb: dwc3: qcom: fix runtime PM wakeup")
> > >>
> > >> >So does this mean you're dropping the patches that should not be
> > >> >backported?
> > >>
> > >> Having said the above, at the end it's your patches and your call, let
> > >> me know if you're okay with dropping a872ab303d5d, a872ab303d5d, and
> > >
> > >You mentioned a872ab303d5d twice here.
> > >
> > >> 6498a96c8c9c from all trees and I'll do that.
> > >
> > >This one didn't have a CC stable tag so not sure why you're backporting
> > >that one either.
> > >
> > >Just pick
> > >
> > > a872ab303d5d ("usb: dwc3: qcom: fix use-after-free on runtime-PM wakeup")
> > >
> > >which was the only patch I had marked for stable and fix up the trivial
> > >context change (an unrelated function has been added after the new
> > >helper in mainline).
> >
> > Okay, this should be done. Please take a look at the queue to confirm.
>
> I only checked the pending-5.19 branch, but that one still has
>
> 360e8230516d ("usb: dwc3: qcom: Add helper functions to enable,disable wake irqs")
>
> which should be dropped as well.
Now dropped. It was needed for a different dwc3 patch, so I dropped
that too and will figure them out later today...
thanks,
greg k-h
