On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:03:01AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 09:37:59AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 09:01:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > 792bb6eb86233 ("io_uring: don't take uring_lock during iowq cancel")
> > > > > > inadvertently fixed this issue in v5.12. This patch cherry-picks the
> > > > > > hunk of commit which does so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't we take all of that commit? Why only part of it?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Why didn't the Stable team take it further than v5.11.y?
> > >
> > > Look in the archives? Did it not apply cleanly?
> > >
> > > /me goes off and looks...
> > >
> > > Looks like I asked for a backport, but no one did it, I only received a
> > > 5.11 version:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/1839646480a26a2461eccc38a75e98998d2d6e11.1615375332.git.asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > so a 5.10 version would be nice, as I said it failed as-is:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/161460075611654@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Precisely. This is the answer to your question:
> >
> > > > > Why can't we take all of that commit? Why only part of it?
> >
> > Same reason the Stable team didn't back-port it - it doesn't apply.
> >
> > The second hunk is only relevant to v5.11+.
>
> Great, then use the "normal" stable style, but down in the s-o-b area
> say "dropped second chunk as it is not relevant to 5.10.y".
Just to clarify, by "normal", you mean:
- Take the original patch
- Apply an "[ Upstream commit <id> ]" tag (or similar)
- Remove the hunk that doesn't apply
- Make a note of the aforementioned action
- Submit to Stable
Rather than submitting a bespoke patch. Right?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
