Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 2 May 2019 10:22:05 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jonas Witschel <diabonas@gmx.de>
Cc:     Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@clip-os.org>,
        Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>, grawity@gmail.com,
        James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix an invalid condition in tpm_common_poll
Message-ID: <20190502072205.GF14532@linux.intel.com>
References: <155371155820.17863.10580533125620125669.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
 <20190328123428.GF7094@linux.intel.com>
 <b29aaf62-2ea0-d6c6-32ee-44bc3fe8f03f@intel.com>
 <20190408120138.GA951@gandi.net>
 <20190409134421.GD9759@linux.intel.com>
 <e9cfa3db-42d7-4e1c-a371-2c810f911dab@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e9cfa3db-42d7-4e1c-a371-2c810f911dab@gmx.de>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:54:47PM +0200, Jonas Witschel wrote:
> On 2019-04-09 15:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 02:01:38PM +0200, Thibaut Sautereau wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> What's the status of this patch now? It's needed in linux-5.0.y as TPM
> >> 2.0 support is currently broken with those stable kernels without this
> >> commit.
> > 
> > part of a PR.
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20190329115544.GA27351@linux.intel.com/
> 
> It appears that the final version of the patch that was merged to
> Linus's tree [1] does not include the "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" tag.
> If I understand correctly, this means that the patch will not be
> automatically included in the -stable tree without further action. Is
> there a specific reason not to apply this patch to 5.0.x, or did the tag

It is my mistake. What I can do is to post it manually to stable.
I promise to do it as soon as it reaches the mainline.

/Jarkko