Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <99b25aab-ba87-b875-9f5f-c7dd9444b8c8@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 09:59:24 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10] coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>, stable@kernel.org,
        Aishwarya TCV <Aishwarya.TCV@arm.com>,
        Cristian Marussi <Cristian.Marussi@arm.com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        coresight@lists.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221102112003.2318583-1-james.clark@arm.com>
 <Y2jLvmF0GZ6yHY0m@kroah.com> <4d44d2c8-a8ec-1729-d3cc-9ae8beb48045@arm.com>
 <Y2jVXdX1Mx5eXAiB@kroah.com>
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y2jVXdX1Mx5eXAiB@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 07/11/2022 09:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:23:26AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 09:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:20:03AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
>>>> commit 6746eae4bbaddcc16b40efb33dab79210828b3ce upstream.
>>>
>>> Isn't this commit 665c157e0204176023860b51a46528ba0ba62c33 instead?
>>
>> This was reverted in commit d76308f03ee1 and pushed in later
>> with fixups as 6746eae4bbadd.
> 
> So which should be applied?

Sorry, this particular post is a backport for v5.10 stable branch.

> 
> confused,

Now I am too. What is expected here ? My understanding is, we
should stick the "upstream" commit that is getting backported
at the beginning of the commit description. In that sense,
the commit id in this patch looks correct to me. Please let
me know if this is not the case.

As such, this is only for 5.10.x branch. The rest are taken
care of.

Please let us know if we are something missing.

Suzuki


> 
> greg k-h