On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:39 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:10:43PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:54 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > As mentioned in an earlier email thread [1], 4.19.99 broke the ability > > > to create stateful and stateless device links between the same set of > > > devices when it pulled in a valid bug fix [2]. While the fix was valid, > > > it removes a functionality that was present before the bug fix. > > > > > > This patch series attempts to fix that by pulling in more patches from > > > upstream. I've just done compilation testing so far. But wanted to send > > > out a v1 to see if this patch list was acceptable before I fixed up the > > > commit text format to match what's needed for stable mailing list. > > > > > > Some of the patches are new functionality, but for a first pass, it was > > > easier to pull these in than try and fix the conflicts. If these patches > > > are okay to pull into stable, then all I need to do is fix the commit > > > text. > > > > I took a closer look at all the patches. Everyone of them is a bug fix > > except Patch 4/6. But Patch 4/6 is a fairly minimal change and I think > > it's easier/cleaner to just pick it up too instead of trying to > > resolve merge conflicts in the stable branch. > > > > 1/6 - Fixes what appears to be a memory leak bug in upstream. > > 2/6 - Fixes error in initial state of the device link if it's created > > under some circumstances. > > 3/6 - Fixes a ref count bug in upstream. Looks like it can lead to memory leaks? > > 4/6 - Adds a minor feature to kick off a probe attempt of a consumer > > 5/6 - Fixes the break in functionality that happened in 4.19.99 > > 6/6 - Fixes bug in 5/6 (upstream bug) > > > > Greg > > > > Do these patches look okay for you to pull into 4.19 stable? If so, > > please let me know if you need me to send v2 with commit fix up. > > > > The only fix up needed is to these patches at this point is changing > > "(cherry picked from commit ...)" with "[ Upstream commit ... ]". The > > SHAs themselves are the correct SHAs from upstream. > > These all look good to me, now all queued up, thanks. Awesome, thanks! -Saravana
