Arnd,
On Thu, 28 May 2015 10:49:46 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 28 May 2015 10:40:13 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Fixes: 1737cac69369 ("bus: mvebu-mbus: make sure SDRAM CS for DMA don't overlap the MBus bridge window")
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.0+
> > ---
> > drivers/bus/mvebu-mbus.c | 105 ++++++++---------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
>
> Hmm, the stable kernel rules say that a patch cannot exceed 100
> lines with context, so this one is technically too large.
Ah, okay, I didn't know about this specific rule.
> Maybe Greg has a suggestion about what to do here. Is it possible
> to make an exception for a revert? In theory you could make a
> smaller version of the patch that adds an #if 0 instead of removing
> some of the code that was added, in order to get below the limit,
> but that seems counterproductive for minimizing the possible risk.
In the specific case of such an exact revert, isn't it possible to make
an exception? I guess the very reason we have rules is to have
exceptions for such rules, no? :-)
It would really be more logical to have a revert than a different patch
just disabling the change, since it would actually be more risky than
just reverting to the previous situation.
Thanks,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html