On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 14:19 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:10:49 +0000
> Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 11:25 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 12:13:30 +0200
> > > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > cfi_ppb_unlock() walks all flash chips when unlocking sectors,
> > > > avoid walking chips unaffected by the unlock operation.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 1648eaaa1575 ("mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Support Persistent Protection Bits (PPB) locking")
> > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > That's clearly not a fix, just an optimization. You should drop the
> > > Fixes and Cc-stable tags.
> >
> > It sure IS! The code never intended to do this and it is just bad luck that nothing bad
> > happened and I sure don't want to walk all 4 chips we have, stealing CPU and keeping the
> > flash busy just because I am using stable.
>
> Except it's like that from the beginning, so that's not a regression
> you're fixing nor it is a real bug preventing you from using the driver
> on your platform. I'm not making the rules of what is appropriate to be
> backported and what is not, but I've been told several times that only
> patches fixing bugs or perf regressions are supposed to be backported,
> and that's not the case here.
I think you are oversimplifying things, look at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?h=linux-4.14.y&id=058dd233b5593a1a5fae4b8df6cb44cbcdccb537
it does not actually fix anything, yet it is in stable.
>
> >
> > Given I have moved on now and we disagree, I will not reword and resubmit any
> > time soon. Feel free to do needed edits though.
>
> I'm sorry, maybe you don't like it but that's the process. I understand
> that it's not pleasant to have to send a new version of patches that
> you thought were good enough to go upstream, but it's like that. If I
> don't apply this rule to you, why should it apply to others.
Come on, you are nitpicking late and want me to do changes I don't agree with.
I don't have to do what you ask and I am tired of this debate.
Once again, choose yourself. If this last patch bothers you, just drop that patch then.
Jocke
