Hi Tim, tharvey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:55:15 -0700: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 12:03 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hey folks, > > > > richard@xxxxxx wrote on Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:59:10 +0200 (CEST): > > > > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > > > >> My IRC history doesn't go back far enough, but if I recall correctly > > > >> Miquel is on vacation, he would have picked up this patch for linux-next > > > >> otherwise. > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > Indeed, I was off for an extended period of time, I'm (very) slowly > > catching up now. > > > > > > > > > Ok, let me do a round of stable releases so that people don't get hit by > > > > this now... > > > > > > Thanks a lot for doing so. > > > > > > > Hopefully this gets fixed up by 5.19-final. > > > > > > Sure, I'll pickup this patch. > > > > Thanks Greg & Richard for the handling of this issue. > > > > Cheers, > > Miquèl > > > > Hello All, > > As Tomasz stated previously 06781a5026350 was merged in v5.19-rc4 and > then was picked up by several stable kernels. While this made it into > the 5.15 and 5.18 stable branches it did not make it into the > following which are thus the are currently broken: > 5.10.y > 5.17.y > > How do we get this patch applied to those stable branches as well to > resolve this? It is likely that the original patch (targeting a mainline kernel) did not apply to those branches. In this case you can adapt the fix to the concerned kernels and send it to stable@ (following the Documentation guidelines for backports). Thanks, Miquèl
