On 19/04/2023 10:57, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
lore seems to be quite sluggish, so my usual office setup
of public-inbox + mutt isn't working..
>
> Hi Conor,
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:51 AM Conor Dooley
> <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:36:43AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 08:55:34AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>
>>>> However, this patch ("riscv: Move early dtb mapping into the fixmap
>>>> region") did end up getting applied to 6.1.y and 6.2.y, despite what the
>>>> email I got said for 6.1.y!
>>>
>>> That's because Sasha backported the dependent patches to get it to
>>> apply.
>>
>> Should probably send out a notification of success then, no?
>> At least, I didn't see one land in my inbox.
>>
>>> Let me just drop all of them, that makes it simpler and then if anyone
>>> wants them applied, then they can send us an explicit set of patches.
>>
>> Perfect, I should be able to do that.
>> Some time here might actually work in our favour, as I don't think this
>> stuff has been tested yet by anyone using XIP and I had expressed some
>> concerns that we would cause them issues.
>
> Let me know how far you'd like to see it backported, I'll do it, I
> already let you deal with all the backport errors, that's the least I
> can do :)
Uh, sure! Always happy to have less to do.
I think 6.1 and 6.2 are "free", it's just a case of telling Greg/Sasha
exactly what commits to pick.
I believe that is your 3 patches for 6.2.y and your 3 patches plus
Bjorn's virtual memory documentation patch for 6.1.y
I don't know what 5.15.y needs, that may be a custom backport.
I don't care about 5.10 (and it may predate any of the commits in the
Fixes: tags.
Cheers,
Conor.
