On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 08:34:45AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:35:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 01-08-19, 08:57, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:05:44PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > On 01-08-19, 07:30, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > > > I must admit I am not familiar with backport/stable process enough. But > > > > > personally I think the your suggestion seems more sensible than > > > > > backporting 4 patches. > > > > > > > > > > Or you can maybe ignore patch 25 and say in patch 24 that among the > > > > > changes made for the 4.4 codebase, the call arm64_apply_bp_hardening() > > > > > was moved from post_ttbr_update_workaround as it doesn't exist and > > > > > placed in check_and_switch_context() as it is its final destination. > > > > > > > > Done that and dropped the other two patches. > > > > > > > > > However, I really don't know what's the best way to proceed according to > > > > > existing practices. So input from someone else would be welcome. > > > > > > > > Lets see if someone comes up and ask me to do something else :) > > > > > > Keeping the same patches that upstream has is almost always the better > > > thing to do in the long-run. > > > > That would require two additional patches to be backported, 22 and 23 > > from this series. From your suggestion it seems that keeping them is > > better here ? > > Yes. Backporting individual patches as they appear upstream is definitely > the preferred method for -stable. It makes the relationship to mainline > crystal clear, as well as any dependencies between patches that have been > backported. Everytime we tweak something unecessarily in a stable backport, > it just creates the potential for confusion and additional conflicts in > future backports, so it's best to follow the shape of upstream as closely as > possible, even if it results in additional patches. > > So I wouldn't worry about total number of patches. I'd worry more about > things like conflicts, deviation from mainline and overall testing coverage. That is exactly correct, thanks for saying it better than I could :) greg k-h
