On 01/08/2019 09:43, Greg KH wrote: > 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 :) > Thanks, I'll try to keep those guidelines in mind for my future comments on backports. Cheers, -- Julien Thierry
