On 26/01/2021 09.50, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:59:54PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 25/01/2021 20.40, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >>> On 25/01/2021 19.39, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> From: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> commit 87fe04367d842c4d97a77303242d4dd4ac351e46 upstream. >>>> >>> >>> Greg, please drop this from 4.19-stable. Details: >>> >>>> >>>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_vtu.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_vtu.c >>>> @@ -357,6 +357,10 @@ int mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(struct mv88 >>>> if (err) >>>> return err; >>>> >>>> + err = mv88e6185_g1_stu_data_read(chip, entry); >>>> + if (err) >>>> + return err; >>>> + >>> >>> The function that this patch applied to in mainline did not exist in >>> v4.19. It seems that this hunk has been applied in the similar >>> mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(), and indeed, in current 4.19.y, just one more >>> line of context shows this: >> >> Bah, that was from 4.14, so the line numbers are a bit off, but I see >> you've also added it to the 4.14 queue. Same comment for that one: Drop >> this from both 4.19.y and 4.14.y. > > Odd, but ok, the Fixes: line lied :) Sorry, but no, it did not. The commit 92307069a96c mentioned in Fixes changed the semantics of the helper mv88e6185_g1_vtu_data_read(), splitting half its functionality to a new helper mv88e6185_g1_stu_data_read(), and it also added a call of that new helper in mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(). But the other user of mv88e6185_g1_vtu_data_read(), namely mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext(), was not updated, which is precisely what 87fe04367d842c4d97a77303242d4dd4ac351e46 fixes. However, that other user of mv88e6185_g1_vtu_data_read() did not exist in 4.19, so the backports of 92307069a96c to those earlier stable trees didn't introduce that bug. Rasmus
