Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2023 13:45:50 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mtd tree with the vfs-brauner
 tree
Message-ID: <20231031134522.27e78274@xps-13>
In-Reply-To: <2131754563.27779.1698751840800.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
References: <20231030103415.401ce804@canb.auug.org.au>
        <20231030173228.691620ca@xps-13>
        <1541110626.24818.1698696696387.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
        <20231031085158.o4ilb5d47sxcqm3o@quack3>
        <1419418117.26823.1698742930275.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
        <20231031-laienhaft-weshalb-bc27f8dacd9e@brauner>
        <2131754563.27779.1698751840800.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
Organization: Bootlin
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Richard,

richard@nod.at wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:30:40 +0100 (CET):

> Christian,
>=20
> ----- Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org> =20
> >> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
> >> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
> >> >>=20
> >> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable=
 releases.
> >> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is lar=
ge.
> >> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree a=
nd therefore
> >> >> is not suitable for stable either. =20
> >> >=20
> >> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for=
 actual
> >> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> >> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution =
is
> >> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such f=
ixes. =20
> >>=20
> >> Yep, let's try this route. :-) =20
> >=20
> > Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
> > not? :) =20
>=20
> No, just keep Jan's patch. (-:
>=20
> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus=
 the
> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.

It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
up. Just send the smaller patch to stable@vger.kernel.org asking them to
backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
kind of constraint, no?

Miqu=C3=A8l