On 30/06/15 10:31, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
On 12/06/15 00:51, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:25:49AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Greg, Greg,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:18 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
Why? What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches
instead?
The exact patch mentioned below ("5686a1e5aa4") will not apply.
Too much of the code around it has changed. This does the same
thing in the same away taking into account the changes around it.
As the original author of 5686a1e5aa4 ("bus: mvebu: pass the coherency
availability information at init time"), I can confirm that it will
clearly not apply as is on 3.10. What Greg Ungerer is proposing here is
a backport of 5686a1e5aa4 to 3.10.
What about 3.14-stable?
As Thomas pointed out, yes. Due to file movements and other changes
neither this patch (for 3.10.y) or the original commit 5686a1e5aa4
apply cleanly to 3.14.y.
How do you want to handle that for 3.14.y?
I need a backport for 3.14.y as well.
And I need a signed-off-by: from the subsystem maintainers that this
backport is acceptable, as it's so different from what is in Linus's
tree, before I can take it.
Ok, I will prepare a 3.14 port. I will send to all recipients of this mail,
that should catch all those who need to sign off on it.
I have generated a version 2 of the original 3.10 patch. No change to
the code diffs, but it changes the commit message to include all of the
original commit followed by a brief description of the back port. Perhaps
this is better?
Regards
Greg
--
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